SITARAM GAS AGENCY Vs. IMRAN HARUNBHAI DABAVALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise from order dated 9.3.2004 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhavnagar in Consumer Disputes Case No.90 of 2002 directing the first two opponents Sitaram Gas Agency and Bharat Petroleum Company to replace the damaged cylinder without charging any tariff or expenses and the opponent No.3 Insurance Company to indemnify the expenditure, if any, required to be incurred by the insured. The learned Forum has also directed the first two opponents to pay compensation and cost in the sum of Rs.2,000/-. The learned Forum has finally directed impounding of undertaking-cum-declaration.

(2.) We have heard the learned Advocate appearing for original opponent No.2 Bharat Petroleum Corporation (respondent No.2 in Appeal No.341 of 2004 and appellant in Appeal No.342 of 2004) and original opponent No.1 M/s. Sitaram Gas Agency. We have gone through the impugned order. No body is present for the original complainant. It would appear that the gas cylinder supplied to the complainant was seriously damaged in an accident of fire caused by rioters in the complainant's house during the communal riots which occurred on or around 1.3.2002. The complainant gave notice dated 19.9.2002 for replacement of the gas cylinder. As the first two opponents did not replace the cylinder, the complainant was required to approach the learned Forum for appropriate reliefs. The first two opponents presented Clause 6 of the agreement contained in the subscription voucher saying that if the cylinder was lost or damaged the consumer was liable to pay tariff amount and appropriate expenses as per the guidelines of the opponent No.2 company. The learned Forum came to the conclusion that Clause 6 requiring the consumer to pay tariff amount of Rs.900/- would not be binding to the complainant as the said appearing in Exh.12/1 was addressed by opponent No.2 company to opponent No.1. The learned Forum also came to the conclusion that if the damage was occurred on account of riots, first two opponents would have to bear the expenses. The learned Forum has also held that under the circumstances attending the damage to the cylinder, the first two opponents ought to have displayed humanitarian approach and should not have insisted upon the tariff to be paid by the complainant. The conditions contained in the undertaking-cum-declaration presented in defence have been held to be one-sided. Bearing in mind all these reasonings the learned Forum proceeded to pass the impugned order.

(3.) The learned Advocate appearing for the original opponents mainly relied on Clause 6 of the agreement which reads as under: "consumer shall be liable for any loss or damage to the equipment or part thereof in accordance with the company's tariff in force on the date of reimbursement. " It is settled law that a contract between a consumer and provider of service or supplier of goods has to be construed beneficially in favour of the consumer. Aforesaid clause does not deal with the contingencies of riots or act of God. If that is so, the opponents cannot be permitted to take advantage of the aforesaid clause for charging tariff even in a case where the cylinder is damaged on account of riot or any other cause attributable to act of God. In our considered opinion, the learned Forum's order cannot be faulted if Clause 6 is read and construed beneficially.