Respondents Not Deficient In Providing Services, No Compensation To Be Provided; SCDRC Delhi
The bench of State Commission Delhi comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Sh. Rajan Sharma, Member has observed that, the complainants have failed to establish their case as against the opposite parties, who cannot be held liable for any deficiency-in-services or adopting any alleged unfair-trade-practice. In this case, Sh. Ajit Singh was the tenant and he was having an LPG...
The bench of State Commission Delhi comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Sh. Rajan Sharma, Member has observed that, the complainants have failed to establish their case as against the opposite parties, who cannot be held liable for any deficiency-in-services or adopting any alleged unfair-trade-practice.
In this case, Sh. Ajit Singh was the tenant and he was having an LPG Gas Connection, with whom Sh. Ravinder Singh (deceased) had been sharing the common kitchen. On 11.03.2009, Sh. Ravinder Singh while changing the cylinder and igniting the gas stove, there occurred a blast resulting in heavy fire causing burn injuries to Ravinder Singh. He was taken to Hospital but he died. The wife and children of the deceased informed the dealer M/s. Gauri Enterprises but he did not bother to compensate them for their unfair trade practice and deficient service. The wife and children of the deceased filed complaint with District Forum against the dealer M/s. Gauri Enterprises and Indian Oil Corporation being the distributor of LPG praying for compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- on account of death of deceased for causing them mental and physical pain, loss of earning, agony, harassment, loss of love and affection. District forum dismissed the complaint by stating that, the complainants have failed to establish their case as against the opposite parties, who cannot be held liable for any deficiency-in-services or adopting any alleged unfair-trade-practice.
Aggrieved by the decision of District Forum the wife and children of the deceased filed an appeal before the Delhi State Commission under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The first issue for consideration before the State Commission was whether the wife and children of the deceased falls under the category of consumers provided by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Commission after relying on Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 observed that, the wife and children of deceased were living in a rented premises with Ajit Singh along with the family and had been sharing the kitchen at the time of said incident. Therefore, the wife and children squarely fall within the category of consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act.
The second issue for consideration before the State Commission was whether the Respondents are deficient in providing its service to the complainants.
Commission found that, Ajit Singh was the registered consumer of M/s. Gauri Enterprises and had only one gas cylinder issued from the M/s. Gauri Enterprises. The M/s. Gauri Enterprises refilled the gas cylinder of Ajit Singh at his residence, in exchange of empty cylinder after the date of fire incident. The wife and children have illegally purchased another gas cylinder, as the M/s. Gauri Enterprises had issued only one gas cylinder to Ajit Singh.
Commission observed that, since the M/s. Gauri Enterprises had refilled the gas cylinder at the residence of the Ajit Singh after the date of incident in exchange of empty cylinder, the contention of the wife and children that the fire incident happened due to the bursting of gas cylinder issued by the M/s. Gauri Enterprises is without any merit. Therefore, the respondents are not deficient in providing its services to the wife and children.
The bench stated that, the fire report also clearly mentioned that there was fire in the LPG cylinder in a house due to which the deceased sustained burn injuries. In these circumstances, it could be deduced that the said fire incident happened due to the bursting of another cylinder, which the wife and children of the deceased had procured illegally.
Delhi State Commission failed to find any cause or reasons to reverse the findings of the District Forum. Commission upheld the judgment passed by the District Forum.
Case Name: Urmila Kumari & Ors. v. M/S. Gauri Enterprises and ors.
Case No.: FIRSTAPPEAL NO.1364/2013
Corum: Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Sh. Rajan Sharma, Member
Decided on: 1st June, 2022