State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Benu Gopal Basu vs Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum ... on 24 February, 2010
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission
West Bengal
BHABANI BHAVAN
(GROUND FLOOR)
31, BELVEDERE ROAD,
ALIPORE
KOLKATA 700 027
S.C. CASE NO. :
FA/382/2009
DATE OF FILING : 30.09.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 24.02.2010
APPELLANTS
1. Benu
Gopal Basu
S/o. Late Hemba Nath Basu
2. Smt.
Aparna Basu
W/o
Benu Gopal Basu
Both
residing at 24/A, Shama Charan Maitra Lane
P.S.
Cossipore
Kolkata-700
036.
RESPONDENTS
1. Regional Manager
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
(L.P.G.)
P-4, Oil Installation Road
Paharpur, AS-Metiaburuz
Kolkata-700 088.
2. M/s. Lokenath Cooking Gas Distributor of
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
(L.P.G.)
1/1, Neggipara Road, P.S. Baranagar
Kolkata-700 036.
BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY
MEMBER : MR. S.COARI
FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. S.M.Maitra, Ld. Advocate
FOR THE RESPONDENT /
O.P.S.: Mr. Arijit Ghosh, Ld. Advocate
Ms. Paramita Pal, Ld. Advocate
: O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 18.8.09 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas, in C.C. Case No. 96 of 2008 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint case with cost thereby directing the OP No. 2 to obtain a duly filled up claim form from the complainants/Appellants along with original supportive documents and to send the same to the Insurance Co. and to pursue the claim of the complainants with due intimation to the complainants, together with a verdict to the effect that the Insurance Co. will settle the claim within 45 days from the date of receipt of the claim, together with litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- in favour of the complainant along with an order of dismissal of the case against the OP No. 1 on contest without cost.
The complainants/Appellants case before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the Complainant No. 1 was a bonafide consumer in respect of the LPG connection under OP No. 2, the distributor under Hindustan Petroleum Ltd. (OP No. 1). According to the complainants case, on 16.7.04 on being asked by the complainants the OP No. 2 deputed a workman to check the complainants gas cylinder and during such checking there was an accidental fire causing severe injuries to the complainants and the workman of OP No. 2.
Subsequently the complainants lodged a complaint before the Ops for compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,38,335/- but the complainants being not accommodated by the Ops they were compelled to lodge a consumer complaint before the Ld. District Forum.
The OP No. 1 contested the case by filing written version thereby denying all the mater averments of the petition of complaint contending inter alia that the OP No. 1 is not a necessary party inasmuch as there was no privity of contract between the OP No. 1 and the complainants for compensation etc. and that the OP No. 2 being a distributor under the OP No. 1 there was no point in impleading the OP No. 1 as a party to the proceeding and prayed for dismissal of the petition of complaint.
The OP No. 2 also contested the case by filing written version thereby denying all the material averments contending inter alia that as the complainants did not prefer a complaint as per the norms provided in the terms of the agreement between the parties, the Insurance Co. did not consider the claim of the complainants. The OP No. 2 also raised a point to the effect that in this case the Insurance Co. is a necessary party which has been left out by the complainants and as such, the petition of complaint was not tenable under the law.
Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that the Complainant No. 1 was a Consumer under the OP No. 2 and that the complainants having not preferred the claim in proper form annexed supportive documents it was not possible for the OP No. 2 to send the same before the Insurance Co. for settling the claim and accordingly, disposed of the petition of complaint in favour of the complainants with a direction to the Ops as mentioned above and in the process, dismissed the petition of complaint against the OP No. 1, which, in the opinion of the Ld. District Forum, was not a necessary party to the proceeding.
The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as discussed above.
DECISION WITH REASONS At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Respondents that in this case the complainants have not impleaded the Insurance Co. as a party to the proceeding and that the Insurance co. being a necessary party the Ld. District Forum ought to have dismissed the petition of complaint. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Respondents, when it is an admitted position that the complainants did not prefer the claim in the prescribed form annexed with supportive documents, question of granting relief to the complainant does not arise at all and the present Appeal having been filed on all false and fictitious grounds there is no merit in the present Appeal and the same should be dismissed in limine.
We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Respondents/Ops and have gone through the materials on record including the pleadings of the parties and the impugned judgement and find that in this case the complainants have put forward a case to the effect that the Complainant No. 1 in the capacity of a bonafide consumer under the Ops sustained burn injuries along with his wife and the workman of the Respondent No. 2 while the workman was checking the LPG cylinder supplied by the Ops/Respondents. As the complainants attempt to secure compensation from the Ops failed, the complainants filed the petition of complaint before the Ld. District Forum for proper redressal. The Ops, on the other hand, have tried to put up a case to the effect that the OP No. 1 was not a necessary party to the proceeding. The complainants have failed to implead the Insurance Co. which is a necessary party to the proceeding and that the complainants having not preferred the claim in the prescribed form supported by connected papers, question of entertaining and settling the claim of the complainant does not arise at all.
From the materials on record we find that there is no dispute about the complainants status as that of a consumer under the Respondents nor there is any dispute about the mishap which took place while the employees of the Op was inspecting the cylinder in question which was admittedly supplied by the OP No. 2. In this connection, we also take note of the fact that the Ops are trying to hoodwink the just claim of the complainant by putting up a case to the effect that it is the Insurance Co. which was not impleaded as a party to the proceeding, is responsible for settling the claim of the complainants/Appellants and that the complainants/Appellants having not fulfilled the usual norms in preferring their claim in proper claim form annexed with connected documents, question of settling the dispute does not arise. In our opinion, such sort of stand-point taken by the Ops/Respondents is not at all sustainable under the law. Whatever be the terms and conditions in between the Ops, under no circumstances the same will help the Ops to bypass the just and proper claim of the complainants/Appellants. We have gone through the impugned judgement carefully and find that we are not in a position to accept the proposition put forward by the Ld. District Forum so far as it relates to directing the OP No. 2 to obtain necessary claim form duly filled up by the complainant along with original annexures and to pursue the same with the Insurance Co. nor we support the verdict of the Ld. District Forum thereby exonerating the OP No. 1 on the ground of not being a necessary party. Keeping in mind that the Consumer Protection Act is a benevolent legislation in our humble opinion we think that the complainants have been successful in putting up their case reasonably well and more so, when there is not denial on part of the Ops as regards the accident fire which took place during inspection of the LPG in question by their authorized agent/workman. Once it is settled that the Complainant No. 1 is a bonafide consumer under the OP No. 2 and that the Complainants/Appellants sustained injuries in the manner as mentioned above, question of avoiding the application to compensate the complainant at the instance of the Ops does not arise at all. Considering the present matter in the light of above observations we are of considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the Ops/Respondents are directed to compensate the complainants in terms of money value. In the result, the Appeal succeeds.
Hence, it is ordered that the Appeal stands allowed in part on contest with cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to be paid by the Ops to the complainants. The impugned ordering portion of the judgement of the Ld. Forum below so far as it relates to directing the OP No. 2 to obtain a duly filled up claim form from the Complainants along with original annexures and sending the same to the Insurance Co. and to pursue the claim of the complainant is hereby set aside. The Ops are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainants to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The other portion of the impugned judgement remains intact. The Ops are directed to pay the awarded amounts to the complainants with 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this judgement, failing which the same will accrue interest @ 9% (nine per cent) per annum for the period of default.
MEMBER MEMBER