JUDGEMENT
C.Viswanath,J. -
(1.)The present Revision Petition, under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") has been filed by the Petitioner against order dated 03.09.2012 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkuala (for short "State Commission") in First Appeal No. 1008/2012 wherein the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.
(2.)Case of the Petitioner/Complainant is that on 20.08.2010 the Complainant booked Indane Cylinder through Respondent No. 1, vide Sr. No. 6254, and thereafter the Complainant again booked second cylinder on 20.09.2010, vide Sr. No. 10513, and the delivery was effected through Respondent No. 2, on 29.09.2010. On 30.10.2010 at about 6:30 P.M. when the Complainant as well as her family members were not present at their residence, as they had gone to their neighbour's house, the Complainant heard a loud noise from the side of her house. When the Complainant rushed towards her house she saw that her house had caught fire due to bursting of the Gas cylinders. Thereafter the Complainant called the Fire Brigade and the Police. A DDR bearing No.19 dated 30.10.2010 was lodged and the Fire Brigade also gave their report, vide Fire Report No. 11 dated 30.10.2010. Various household items such as furniture, electronic appliances etc. as well as jewellery and cash amount of Rs.78,000/- were lost in the fire. On 02.11.2010, she moved an application alongwith copy of DDR, photocopy of Newspaper, Fire Brigade Report and list of articles before Respondent No. 1 for compensation. Respondent No. 1, however, had neither given any compensation nor any reply to her. On 04.11.2010, she again moved an application regarding the claim and compensation. Thereafter, a Surveyor Sh. Sanjeev Chhabra was appointed and he sought certain documents from the Complainant, vide letter dated 08.11.2010. The Complainant submitted all the requisite documents to the office of the Surveyor. However, Respondent No. 1 kept prolonging the matter and on 03.02.2011 finally refused the claim. Complainant thereafter filed a Complaint before the District Forum with the following prayer:-
"that the respondent may kindly be ordered to give a sum of Rs.2,56,805/- as building loss, Rs.5,86,500/- as the loss of house hold articles, rent expenses of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of fire, Rs.1,00,000/- for physical harassment and mental pain alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum to the complainant, in the interest of justice and equity."
(3.)The case was contested by the Respondents/Opposite Parties before the District Forum. Opposite Party No.1/Respondent No.1 that it had taken an Insurance Policy from Opposite Party No.3/Respondent No.3 vide cover note No.238732/734355/734356/734357 dated 09.12.2019, covering the liability qua public. Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 had also taken insurance cover for indemnifying the complainant in respect of any claims awarded to the third party in respect of liability at law. Hence, Complainant was not entitled for any claim from Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the Claim. Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 in its reply followed the same line of Opposite Party No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the Complaint. Respondent No.3/Opposite Party No.3 stated that the liability is covered only when the cylinders from the insured's premises are in course of being carried for installation in the premises of the insured customers in the insured premises. As per terms and conditions of the Policy the liability to third party is covered only if the incident happens at the time of installation of gas cylinder in the customer's premises or whilst carrying back such empty cylinders. In the present case explosion happened after a gap of one month of the installation of the gas cylinder. Therefore, Opposite Party No.3/Respondent No.3 was not liable to indemnify for the loss suffered by the Complainant.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.