GAS SERVICE Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant Paras Kumar had obtained an LPG connection of respondent Indian Oil Corporation from the petitioner Sri Gas Service for being used in his house No.2-A of 6, Saraswati Colony, Kota. The case of the complainant is that on 27.12.2000, a delivery boy of the petitioner delivered an LPG cylinder at his house, without checking the said cylinder. The petitioner did not check the cylinder despite the complainant having personally gone to its premises on 30.12.2000 and 31.12.2000 and having requested inspection of the cylinder. On 31.12.2000, when the sister of the complainant removed the cap of the above referred LPG cylinder for replacing the empty LPG cylinder, the LPG came out from the cylinder with a high speed, resulting in damage to the properties of the complainant, including his house and his belongings kept in the house. This, according to the complainant, happened on account of the valve of the cylinder being defective. District Collector, Kota appointed a Committee to check the LPG godown of the petitioner and several cylinders filled with LPG and kept in the said godown were found leaking or were defective. Alleging negligence on the part of the petitioner in rendering services to him, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, seeking compensation. The petitioner, Indian Oil Corporation as well as the insurer from whom an insurance policy had been taken by the petitioner were impleaded as the opposite parties in the consumer complaint.

(2.) The complaint was resisted by the petitioner as well as by Indian Oil Corporation both of whom took a common stand that the delivery of the cylinder was taken by the complainant from the godown of the petitioner under cash and carry system, availing a rebate of Rs.5/- and the complainant himself had checked the cylinder at the time delivery was taken. This was their case that the family members of the complainant were negligent while fitting the regulator, which had resulted in the aforesaid incident.

(3.) The insurer disputed its liability, claiming that no information of the incident was given to them. It was also pleaded by the insurer that they were liable to pay only if the LPG cylinder at the premises of the consumer was installed by the employees of the LPG dealer.