State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Ranjeet Singh. vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. on 22 November, 2017
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
Transfer Application No.: 10/2017
Date of Presentation: 23.06.2017
Order reserved on: 17.10.2017
Date of Order : 22.11.2017
Ranjeet Singh son of Shri Prabhu Ram resident of Village Jandehar
P.O. Badhaghat Tehsil Ghumarwin District Bilaspur H.P.
...... Applicant/Complainant
Versus
1. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through its M.D. registered
Office Indian Oil Bhawan G-9 Ali Yavar Jung Marg Badra
(East) Mumbai-400 051.
......Non-applicant/Opposite party No.1
2. H.P. State Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. Kasumpti
District Shimla H.P through its Managing Director.
......Non-applicant/Opposite party No.2
3. Manager H.P. State Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. Agency
Ghumarwin District Bilaspur H.P.
......Non-applicant/Opposite party No.3
4. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Mythe Estate Kaithu
Shimla H.P through its Regional Manager.
......Non-applicant/Opposite party No.4.
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member
Hon'ble Ms. Meena Verma Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Applicant : Mr. Ajeet Singh Advocate.
For Non-applicant No.1 : Mr. Mukul Sood Advocate.
For Non -applicants No.2 & 3 : Mr. Navlesh Verma Advocate.
For Non-applicant No.4 : Mr. Bunesh Pal Advocate.
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
M.A. No.10/2017
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R :-
1. Present application is filed under section 17-A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for transfer of Consumer complaint No.161/2016 title Ranjeet Singh Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. pending before learned District Forum Bilaspur H.P camp at Ghumarwin to H.P. State Commission for disposal.
Brief facts of the case:-
2. It is pleaded that original consumer complaint No.161 of 2016 qua personal injury sustained by complainant on account of LPG cylinder blast is pending for disposal before learned District Forum Bilaspur camp at Ghumarwin. It is pleaded that complainant has also filed another original consumer complaint No.02/2017 before State Commission in the capacity of L.R's of deceased Chino Devi @ Chinti Devi on account of accidental death of late Smt. Chino Devi @ Chinti Devi due to LPG cylinder blast. It is further pleaded that original consumer complaint pending before learned District Forum be transferred to State Commission for disposal. Prayer for acceptance of transfer application sought.
3. Per contra response filed on behalf of non- applicant No.1 pleaded therein that present transfer application is not maintainable as claim already stood settled inter se parties. It is pleaded that applicant has received the 2 M.A. No.10/2017 amount of claim as full and final settlement and has given the discharge certificate against entire claim. It is further pleaded that complainant did not approach State Commission with clean hands and complainant has received Rs.541699/-(Five lac forty one thousand six hundred ninety nine) on dated 19.01.2017 vide demand draft No.945738 dated 22.12.2016 from United India Insurance Company Ltd. as full and final settlement. It is pleaded that non-applicant No.1 is supplier of LPG cylinder and non-applicants No.2 & 3 are distributors. It is pleaded that it is the duty of distributor to keep the equipment in a proper manner. It is further pleaded that State Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of complaint because matter already stood settled inter se the parties by way of out of Forum/Commission intervention. Prayer for dismissal of application sought.
4. Per contra separate response filed on behalf of non-applicant No.4 i.e. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. pleaded therein that application is not maintainable. It is denied that both complaints have arisen out of the same incident. It is also denied that evidence in all complaints would be same. Prayer for dismissal of application sought. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-applicants No.2 & 3 submitted that non-applicants No.2 & 3 do not want to file any response to transfer application.
3 M.A. No.10/2017
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the entire record carefully.
6. Following points arise for determination in present transfer application.
1. Whether it is expedient in the ends of justice and on principles of natural justice to transfer original complaint i.e. complaint No.161/2016 pending before learned District Forum to State Commission for disposal.
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant that original consumer complaint No.161/2016 pending before learned District Forum title Ranjeet Singh Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr. be transferred to State Commission for disposal is decided accordingly. The jurisdiction to dispose of original consumer complaint by learned District Forum is defined under section 11 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. As per Consumer Protection Act 1986 all original consumer complaints where relief is not sought exceeding Rs.20.00 lac (Twenty lac) shall be disposed of by learned District Forum. Jurisdiction of State Commission is defined under section 17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. As per section 17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 all original complaint wherein relief is sought exceeding Rs.20.00 lac (Twenty lac) but not exceeding 4 M.A. No.10/2017 Rs.1.00 crore (One Crore) shall be disposed by State Commission.
8. State Commission is of the opinion that word shall mentioned in section 11 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and word shall mentioned in section 17 mentioned in Consumer Protection Act 1986 are mandatory in nature and not directory in nature. It is admitted fact that relief sought in original consumer complaint No.161/2016 pending before learned District Forum is not exceeding Rs.20.00 lac (Twenty lac) and it is also admitted fact that relief sought in original C.C. No.02/2017 is exceeding Rs.20.00 lac (Twenty lac). It is also proved on record that in original C.C. No.02/2017 relief has been sought on account of death of Smt. Chino Devi @ Chinti Devi in the capacity of LRs and relief sought in original C.C. No.161/2016 is sought in the personal individual capacity. It is well settled law that status of LRs of deceased person and personal status of living individual are entirely two different concepts under law.
9. State Commission is of the opinion that in case original consumer complaint No.161/2016 is transferred to State Commission then opposite parties would loose one statutory right of appeal before State Commission against order of learned District Forum. Opposite parties No.1 & 4 have opposed the transfer application on the ground that their one statutory right of appeal would be defeated in case 5 M.A. No.10/2017 original C.C. No.161/2016 is transferred to State Commission from learned District Forum for disposal.
10. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to defeat the statutory right of appeal of opposite parties available to opposite parties under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is held that cause of actions are also different because cause of action to the applicant in original consumer complaint No.161/2016 is personal in nature and cause of action in C.C. No.02/2017 pending before State Commission is in the capacity of legal representatives of deceased Smt. Chino Devi @ Chinti Devi.
State Commission is of the opinion that different evidence will be adduced by the parties in both the original complaints. It was held by Hon'ble National Consumer Commission reported in 2017(3) CPR 590 NC titled Jayant Maruti Desai and Anr. Versus M/s. Puranik Builders Pvt. Ltd. that Consumer Protection Act does not envisage joinder of causes of action even if cause of action happens to be against same person. It is well settled law that ruling given by Hon'ble National Consumer Commission is binding upon State Commission.
11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-applicants No.1 & 4 that non-applicants No.1 & 4 will loose right of original appeal against the order of learned District Forum in case original complaint pending 6 M.A. No.10/2017 before learned District Forum is transferred to State Commission for disposal is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to deny statutory right of appeal to the opposite parties under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order of learned District Forum. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order
12. In view of findings upon point No.1 above transfer application is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. Certified copy of order be sent back to learned District Forum forthwith for information and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Transfer application is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Vijay Pal Khachi Member Meena Verma Member 22.11.2017 K.D * 7