TARLOCHAN SINGH Vs. JOTI GAS AGENCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is an appeal against the order dated 29.1.1999 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (hereinafter called the District Forum ).

(2.) According to the appellant/complainant (hereinafter called the complainant), on 17.1.1998 at about 6 p. m. when the gas supply in the old cylinder got suddenly exhausted, then at the request of his wife, the petitioner tried to replace the old cylinder with a fresh one available in the house, resulting in large leakage under intense pressure of L. P. G. as for want of a proper regulatory valve. Soon thereafter the entire bed room-cum-kitchen got filled up with the leaked gas. At that time petitioner's wife switched on the electric light and the sparking caused thereby resulted in an explosion which burnt/damaged quite a few domestic articles as detailed in the petition. According to the complainant, this sparking on switching on the electric light which ultimately damaged some domestic articles is due to following reasons : (i) that there was no regulatory valve fitted to the L. P. G. cylinder in question; (ii) that the supply to the gas stove of the petitioner suddenly got exhausted upon which he tried to replace the exhausted (L. P. G.) cylinder with a fresh one resulting in the uncontrolled leakage of the gas in the room; (iii) that the petitioner's wife switched on the electric light when some spark therefrom had caused explosion and consequent damage.

(3.) The material question to be determined in this case is as to whether the alleged accident took place due to some defect in the gas cylinder. No reliable evidence has been placed on the record, which could prove that the accident took place due to some defect in the gas cylinder. There is no evidence on the file as to how the fire had broken, which ultimately damaged the domestic articles of the complainant. Even the story covering the alleged incident of expiry of previous cylinder and its immediate replacement for fresh supply through another cylinder is not proved on the record. Though the petitioner has testified the story, but it could not be corroborated by his wife, who was available to give her version before the District Forum. Instead of producing his wife, the complainant tried to seek corroboration of the statement from a co-villager, which is of no consequence. There is no evidence to prove the petitioner's version about the switching of electric light and resultant sparking. There is no direct evidence of any technical expert with reference to that particular switch and its operation. Even the wife, who had switched on the electric light, did not testify this fact before the District Forum. Non-production of damaged L. P. G. regulator and connecting rubber pipe is also damaging to the version of the complainant. There is no evidence on the file which could show that the incident of fire etc. was reported to the police. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum, which is hereby affirmed. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed.