D.O.F. 08.08.2005
D.O.O. 25.07.2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. K. Gopalan : President
Smt. K.P. Preethakumari : Member
Smt. M.D. Jessy : Member
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2011.
C.C.No.209/2005 & C.C.No.210/2005
C.C.No.209/2005
Polian Mammad,
S/o. Moosa,
Saida Manzil, Nalankori, : Complainant
P.O. Porora, Mattannur,
Kannur District.
(Rep. by Adv. V.R. Nasar)
1. T.R. Gopi,
S/o. raman,
Proprietor, T.R. gas Agency,
Iritty Road, Mattannur,
Kannur District
(Rep. by Adv. Baby M. Perumpillil)
2. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,
Regd. Office at G-9,
Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), : Opposite Parties
Mumbai – 51
(Rep. by Adv. P.C. Sarathchandran)
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Mumbai City Divisional Office,
No.16, Magnet House, 4th Floor,
Narottam Morarjee Marg,
Ballard Estate, Mumbai-1.
(Rep. by Adv. K. Reghunathan)
C.C.No.210/2005
Shareefa Muthubi,
W/o. Mammad,
Saida Manzil, Nalankori, : Complainant
P.O. Porora, Mattannur,
Kannur District.
(Rep. by Adv. V.R. Nasar)
1. T.R. Gopi,
S/o. raman,
Proprietor, T.R. gas Agency,
Iritty Road, Mattannur,
Kannur District
(Rep. by Adv. Baby M. Perumpillil)
2. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltdl,
Regd. Office at G-9,
Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), : Opposite Parties
Mumbai – 51
(Rep. by Adv. P.C. Sarathchandran)
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Mumbai City Divisional Office,
No.16, Magnet House, 4th Floor,
Narottam Morarjee Marg,
Ballard Estate, Mumbai-1.
(Rep. by Adv. K. Reghunathan)
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Preethakumari, Member.
Since the subject matter and opposite parties are one and the same, the above two complaints have taken up for consideration together for convenience.
C.C.No.209/2005
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for passing an order directing the opposite parties to pay ` 5,00,000 as compensation.
The case in brief is that the complainant is residing in Saida Manzil, Porora P.O., Mattanur along with his wife and children including one Samad and the above said Samad is a consumer of opposite party having No: 14025 and the occupants of the house of the complainant is using gas for preparing food. On 10.08.2003 at 9.00 pm while the complainant’s wife was preparing food using gas fire spread all on a sudden and complainant and his wife were sustained grevious burn injuries. The incident was occurred not because of any default on the part of the complainant or his wife, but due to defective gas cylinder and pressure regulator system supplied by the opposite parties. Immediately after the incident the complainant and his wife were taken to Lakshmi Memorial Hospital, Mattannur and then to Thalassery Co-operative hospital and due to the seriousness of injuries the complainant was referred to Baby Memorial Hospital, Calicut for expert management and the complainant was undergone treatment at I.C.U of Baby Memorial Hospital for 22 days and discharged at their request due to financial stringency and continued treatment as out patient and are taking medicines even now under the supervision of medical consultants and had spent ` 2,00,000 as treatment expenses and had suffered so much of mental and physical pain and loss of earnings. The complainant was a teacher by profession and was earning more than ` 10,000 per month. Now the complainant is fully disabled and not in a position to do any work. So he assess ` 6,00,000 as compensation for pain and sufferings, loss of earnings and for medical and other expenses and he limited his claim as ` 5,00,000. The complainant has forwarded his claim for compensation to 1st and 2nd opposite parties through their son Samad. On the basis of the claim, the 3rd opposite party who had issued policy covering LPG Fire accident claim required the complainant to part with all original documents with respect to the treatment and bill and the complainants were produced the photocopies of these documents. Since no information from the opposite parties the complainant issued lawyer notice on 04.08.2005. Since there was no reply from opposite parties and the period of limitation will start on 09.08.05, the complaint was filed. The incident was occurred due to the defective gas cylinder and regulator system and 1st opposite party is having LPG Fire accident claim for its consumer, all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant and hence the complaint.
In pursuance to the notices issued by the Forum all the opposite parties appeared and filed their versions.
The first opposite party filed version contending that there is no cause of action arised on 10.08.2003. According to 1st opposite party he is only a distributor of LPG under 2nd opposite party and refill cylinders and all other equipments are loanned by 2nd opposite party to consumers. If there is any fault or defect to the system 1st opposite party is not liable and 1st opposite party is acting only as per the direction of 2nd opposite party. As claimant under the insurance policy the complainant should complied with all the directions of 3rd opposite party for the purpose of enforcing his rights. Since that has not been done, there is contributory negligence on the part of the complainant and hence the complaint is not maintainable. The 1st opposite party admits that the above said connection was availed by the above said Samad on 07.05.2000 as domestic connection, but denied the averment that the complainant and his wife were living with the above said Samad and the complainant is not a teacher. From 07.05.2000 onwards the above said Samad was using LPG and the refill cylinders were released to them through delivery person and also under cash and carry system. The 1st opposite party gave rebate to the said Samad. On 10.08.2003 the said customer requested for refill cylinder urgently and the cylinder was released to him under cash and carry system as per refill voucher bill cash memo No. L015776 dated 10.08.2003 and an amount of ` l250.92 was levied from him after deducting the rebate of ` 8 and the said cylinder was given to him after conducting all necessary checkings and was marketable without any default. The regulator is of penta make having serial No.RE 0408 and have no defect. The alleged fire took place not due to any mistake or defect in the cylinder, pressure regulator, or any other accessories, but it is understood that the same was occurred due to the manhandling of the equipments by the inmates in the premises of the customer. The complainant has not subjected to any sort of mental or physical pain due to any deficiency in service, negligence or due to any defects in the cylinder or pressure regulator and have not spend ` 2,00,000 for treatment and has not suffered any loss of earnings. There is no basis for the claim of 5 lakhs and are not entitled to any claim as there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. On getting information about the alleged incident the 1st opposite party informed the Divisional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Indane area office, Kochi. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and hence the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
2nd opposite party also filed version contending that the complainant is not a consumer and has no locus standi to file the above complaint. The complainant is not a consumer of LPG connection taken from the opposite party. The 2nd opposite party denied the averment that the complainant had sustained burned injuries not because of any fault of his own, but due to defective gas cylinder and regulator system etc. The 2nd opposite party further denied the averments that the complainant had undergone treatment in Lakshmi Memorial Hospital, Mattannur, Co-operative hospital, Thalassery, Baby Memorial Hospital, Kozhikode etc. The 2nd opposite party also denies the averment that the complainant has undergone treatment at the ICU of Baby Memmorial Hospital for 22 days and got discharged at his request with incomplete recovery due to financial stringency and treatment is continuing etc. The 2nd opposite party further denied the allegation that complainant has suffered mental as well as physical pain due to the injuries sustained and had spent about 2 lakhs for their treatment etc and also denied the statement that he is entitled to get ` 5,00,000 as for pain and sufferings, loss of earnings and for treatment expenses. There is no negligence on the part of 2nd opposite party and hence the complainant is not entitled to any compensation. The complainant had not furnished details of the alleged LPG fire accident claim policy and request for submission of documents. They have not furnished any photocopies of the document. The complainant has filed the above complaint without giving breathing time to opposite party to issue a reply to the notice. One Samad, Saida Manzil, Maruthayi had availed an Indane LPG connection in the year 2000 and opposite party had provided consumer with quality pressure regulator and rubber tube approved by 2nd opposite party also provided with a LPG pass book containing details of the precautions and usage of the LPG, the dates showing replacement of pressure regulator, rubber tube etc. The consumer is required to change the rubber tube atleast in every two years with a brand new rubber tube having ISI certification to ensure safety during operation. The consumer had placed the hot plate along with the LPG cylinder in the kitchen of their house whereas a firewood hearth is also used for cooking food. The enquiries revealed that the consumer had not replaced the rubber tube ever since its purchase and on many occasion the old rubber tube was cut or trimmed to make the terminals at the hot plate and pressure regulator tighter. The terminal points at the hot plate and the pressure will become loose due to inherent and natural quality of rubber and for that reason all consumers are advised to replace the rubber tube. It is know that on the date of incident the complainant’s wife had tried to fix the snapped rubber tube and in the process she had forgotten to switch off the regulator and having leak of gas ensued making her panic and had sought the help of complainant. The complainant’s wife used for preparing food simultaneously from the fire wood hearth just 2.25 M away from the LPG hot plate. The consumer as well as the complainants have totally ignored the recommendation of 2nd opposite party. The allegation raised against the quality of pressure regulator and rubber tube are baseless. Refixing the rubber tube trimming the old rubber tube at its ends was the main reason for LPG leakage. Though the incident was occurred on 10.08.2003, the matter was informed to the distributor only on 12.08.2003 evening and it was noticed that all the relevant equipments including the cylinder were removed and kept in another room. So as to tamper with or conceal the vital piece of evidence. On getting informed about the incident Sr. K.K. Narayanan Deputy Manager (LPG-Sales), Kozhikode had made investigation and had submit a report to the effect that there was negligence on the part of the complainant by using old rubber tube by trimming its ends many times and the leakage was due to the same and the nearly firewood hearth caused the flames to spread all over the kitchen. So the complainant had sustained injuries due to their own fault and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The 3rd opposite party filed version contending that the complainant is not a consumer and there is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite parties. The 3rd opposite party admits that the insured had raised a claim but it was not supported by original of the relevant documents and the complainants have not produced the same even after issuance of so many communications. The claim should have considered only on production of documents without delay and hence repudiation is not on merit and repudiation can be subject to challenge only if that repudiation is on merit and hence the proceedings are pre-mature. The complainant is not entitled to get any claim because the alleged incident is happened mainly due to sheer negligence and non-compliance of statutory provision and also due to use of non-standard rubber tube such as non-fulfillment of maintenance of proper quality control. As per policy the claims comes under the exclusive clause. The averment that the incident occurred only due to the defects of the regulator supplied by the opposite party is false and denied. The allegation that the complainant had already spent about ` 2,00,000 for their treatment is false and the allegation that the complainant has loss of earnings of more than ` 10,000 per month also is not correct. The amount shown in the complaint by way of compensation for pain and sufferings, medical expenses, compensation for loss of expectation of life and disfiguration etc are highly exorbitant. Since there is no defective service on the part of opposite party and the complainant is premature, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Upon the above contention the following issues have been raised for consideration.
1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
4. Relief and cost.
The evidence in the above case consists of oral testimony of PW1, DW1 to DW3 and Ext.A1 to A10, X1 and X2 and B1 to B8. The evidence of witness has been taken as common in both C.C.209/05 and C.C.210/05
C.C.No.210/2005
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite parties to pay ` 5 lakhs as compensation.
The facts of the case are same as that of C.C.209/05. So we are not narrating the entire incident again. The complainant also suffered severed burned injuries in the same incident. She is also treated in Lakshmi memorial hospital, Thalassery co-operative hospital and Baby Memorial hospital in ICU for 22 days. The complainant also suffered loss of earnings in the tune of ` 2,000 per month since she is doing business of selling prepared food items and suffered both mental, physical and financial sufferings and also incurred ` 2,00,00 for treatment. So the complainant is entitled to get the claim amount to the tune of ` 5,00,000.
The opposite parties filed version with same contentions as put forwarded in C.C.209/05.
On the above pleadings the following issues have been raised for consideration.
1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
4. Relief and cost.
The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1, DW1 to DW3 and Exts.A1 to A14, X1 and X2 and B1 to B8.
Issue No.1 in C.C.209/05 and 210/05
The issues in the above both complaints have been taken together for consideration for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition. Both the complainants have the same grievances.
The complainant’s case is that they are the father and mother of one Mr. Samad who is the consumer of 1st and 2nd opposite party having consumer No.14025 and had sustained burned injuries which was caused due to the defective equipments supplied by 1st and 2nd opposite party and there is valid insurance policy of 3rd opposite party. In order to prove their case the complainant in C.C.209/05 was examined as PW1 and documents such as medical bills, discharge summary, gas stove warranty, registration slip, letter issued by 3rd opposite party for producing documents, I.P. files from Baby Memorial hospital with respect to both the complainants, customer card, ration card and salary certificate of the complainant in C.C.209/05 etc were produced. In order to disprove the case opposite parties also examined as DW1 to DW3 and produced documents such as customer history card, refill bill dated 10.08.2003, lawyer notice, policy schedule with conditions, letter of intimation to 1st opposite party by customer etc.
The opposite parties contended that the complainants are not consumers of opposite parties since the son of the complainants had availed gas connection and hence there is no privity of contract between the complainants and the opposite parties. Admittedly the complainants son Samad is a consumer of 1st and 2nd opposite parties having No.14025 and 3rd opposite party is the insurer. According to the 3rd opposite party the complainants are only third persons and hence the liability is limited to third persons as per Sec 2 of the policy condition. But as per Sec 2 (d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act a consumer is a person who avails of any services for consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of 1st mentioned person. So it is seen that the said Samad is the customer and availed of service of 1st and 2nd opposite party and complainants were availed of such service with the approval of the above said Samad. So the complainants are the beneficiaries and hence we hold the view that the complainants in both cases having No. C.C. 209/05 and C.C.210/05 are consumers and hence issues No.1 are found in favour of the complainants in C.C. 209/05 and C.C.210/05.
The further case of the complainant is that the incident was occurred because of the defective equipments supplied by 3rd opposite party whereas opposite parties contended that the incident was occurred due to the carelessness and negligence on the part of the complainant in C.C.210/05 and inorder to substantiate their contention 3rd opposite party has produced Ext.B6 Surveyor’s report and examined him as DW3. He deposed before the Forum that “Fsâ investigation valve Xpd-¶-t¸mÄ regulatorsâ outlet leak Bb-Xp-sIm-mWv A]-I-S-ap-m-bXv F¶mWv a\-Ên-em-¡n-b-Xv. Fsâ A`n-{]m-b-¯n faulty pressure regulator sImm-hmT A]-I-S-ap-m-bXv.” Moreover in page 5 of Surveyor’s Ext.B6 report states that “Exposure to the fire would have probably damaged the pressure regulating mechanism, hence it is difficult to say whether the pressure regulator was in good condition or not at the time of leakage. Possibility of pressure regulating mechanism failing causing full pressure of the gas inside the cylinder in the tube instead of a regulated law pressure cannot be ruled out. In such an extent the moment the knob is turned to on, the tube will come out of the pressure regulating nipple to which it is connected with full force, causing heavy leakage of gas. “He further reported that “in a similar incident which took place at Panniyannoor in Kannur district in February, 2001, under similar circumstances, the LPG company had attributed the cause to “faulty regulator” which developed a leak at the crimped area. The surveyor again reported that “the LPG Company’s report does not mentioned of carrying out any detailed examination of the pressure regulator to rule out possibility of a mechanically defective regulator”. Above this the Surveyor reported that the “claim does not attract any of the exclusions or exceptions specified in the policy and hence liability exists”. The above findings of the Surveyor substantiate the case of the complainants that the alleged accident was occurred due to the defective equipments. Eventhough the Surveyor reported that there is possibility of faulty pressure regulator, the opposite parties have not produced any documents to show that the regulator was checked and is in perfect working condition. The 1st opposite party contended that on 10.08.2003, the customer has taken the gas cylinder by cash N carry system and hence the complainants themselves has connected the regulator with the hot plate and cylinder and hence they have no liability. But it is the bounden duty of 1st and 2nd opposite party to ensure that the equipments are in good condition whatever may be the mode of delivery ie either by Cash N Carry or through delivery person. So from the available evidence on record we hold the view that the alleged incident was caused due to the faulty pressure regulators provided by 1st and 2nd opposite parties and 3rd opposite parties is liable to indemnify the complainants as per the policy conditions since there exists a valid insurance policy.
The 3rd opposite party contended that the claim is a premature one and has no cause of action arised. But according to the complainant, since the period of limitation of 2 years from the date of incident will be elapsed on 09.08.05, the complainant had constrained to file the complaint. It is the admitted case that the incident was occurred on 10.08.03 and as per Ext.B5 letter dated 12.08.03 the consumer intimated the incident to opposite party. The Ext.A7 letter dated 17.06.04 shows that the 3rd opposite party had issued a letter to 2nd opposite party for submitting relevant documents. This Ext.A7 also reveals that 3rd opposite party had already issued two other letter dated 09.02.04 and 07.05.04 for the same purpose. The complainants contended that they had already issued photocopies of the documents to the opposite parties. But according to 3rd opposite party the insured 1st opposite party has not issued the same and hence they closed the claim as “No claim” due to non-submission of documents and the same was intimated to the complainant on 04.04.05. The complainant has filed this complaint only on 08.08.05. It is a fact that whatever may the grounds for repudiation or rejection of the claim, the complainants have no other to go except to approach the Forum for enforcing their legal right. Above all the surveyor who was deputed by 3rd opposite party had submittd his report to 3rd opposite party on 14.11.03. In this report he had mentioned details of the medical bills and mentioned that the complainant in C.C.209/05 had incurred ` 77783.61 and the complainant in C.C.210/05 had incurred ` 70519.58 for their treatment as on the date of his inspection. He had also mentioned in his report that he had verified the original bills and documents. Even if it is so the 3rd opposite party had closed the claim of the complainant as no claim on 04.04.05. The complainant also contended that they have produced the documents before 3rd opposite party. So the contention of 3rd opposite party that the claim is a premature one cannot be accepted and we are of the opinion that cause of action was arisen on 04.04.05. Since the situation is this one cannot say that the complainants have to suffer. So we are of the opinion that the complainants are entitled for the insurance claim.
Then the next question to be decided is what is the quantum for which the complainants are entitled. According to 3rd opposite party the complainants are entitled to get only ` 25,000 each as the insured amount as per Section 7 of the policy. DW2, the Assistant Manager of 3rd opposite party deposed that “Section 7  ]d-bp-¶Xv employee of the insured liability BWv. AXv {]Im-c-amWv ` 25,000 limit sh¨Xv F¶p ]d-ªm icn-bmWv.” He again deposed that “ B4se policy conditions 6(a)bnse narrations of public liability 10 lakhs hsc-sb¶p ]d-ªn-«pv. As per B4 policy condition Section VII says about personal accident. As per this “if the insured or any named partner, director or member or management staff or employees of the insured aged between 16 to 65 years permanently working with the insured and named in the schedule shall sustain bodily injury solely and directly caused by accidental incident external and visible means resulting in death or disablement as stated herein after the company shall pay to the insured”. So from the above it is very clear that Section 7 says about the 3rd opposite party’s liability to the employees of the insured and is not applicable to the complainants. The learned counsel for 3rd opposite party vehemently argued that the liability of the company is as per Section 2 of the policy condition, which says about the liability of 3rd opposite party, if third person has sustained injury, and in this case the complainants are third person and not in any way connected to the company. But we answered the first issue and found that the complainants are the beneficiaries of the 1st opposite party and hence this argument become infructuous. The PW2 again deposed that “km[m-cW gas D]-tbm-Kn-¡p-¶-hÀ premium AS-¡m-dnÃ. We are indemnifying the liability of the insured”. So as per Section 6 of policy conditions which says about public liability and as per Section 6(a) “The Company will indemnify the insured in respect of all sums which the insured is legally liable to pay as compensation and litigation expenses incurred by the insured or by Indian oil corporation with the Company’s written consent in respect of accidental death or bodily injury to any other than a person under the insured’s service and or accidental damage to property caused by or arising from installation of gas filled LPG cylinder in the premises of the insured’s customers or whilst such cylinders from the insured’s premises are in the course of being carried for installation in the premises of the insured’s customers or whilst such empty cylinders are in the course of being carried from the premises of the insured. Customers to the insured’s premium not exceeding in all for the compensation and litigation expenses, the limit of ` 10,00,000 for any one of accident or a series of accidents arising from any one event and ` 40,00,000 for all accidents during one period of insurance.” So as per B4 policy and as per the deposition of DW2, the Manager of 3rd opposite party, it is clear that the limit of liability of 3rd opposite party to the complainants is ` 10,00,000.
In order to prove the quantum of the amount, both the complainants have produced bills. The complainant in O.P.209/05 produced 67 bills which amounts to ` 117329.82 and the complainant in O.P.210/05 have produced 50 bills which amounts to ` 66,580.17. The DW3 insurance Surveyor deposed that “a½-Zn\v Nne-hmb XpI Rm³ ImWp¶ Znh-kT hsc ` 77883.61DT sjdo-^-bp-tSXv ` 70519.58 DT BWv. lc-Pn-¡m-sc-¡v kT-kmcn¡pI-bpT t_mUn-bn-ep-ff injury ]cn-tim-[n-¡p-I-bpT tcJ-IÄ ]cn-tim-[n-¡p-I-bpT sNbvXn-cp-¶p.” The Surveyor again reported in his report dated 14.11.2003 about the physical condition of injured persons that the “complainant in C.C.209/05 was still continued to bed towards off any infection to the skin on various parts of his body and was able to sit up in bed but unable to write. The complainant in C.C.210/05 was fully bed ridden unable to hold her head straight due to loss of skin from all around her neck portem. It was understand that she needs further plastic surgery in stages to be able to recover from her present disabled state. Since possibility of infection from burn wounds existed, she was also kept in isolation inside the bed room of the house.” So from the above description it is seen that the nature of injuries sustained by the complainants are severe in nature. From the Ext.B6 report itself it is clear that the complainants needs further treatments including plastic surgery. So we assess ` 1,25,000 for the treatment of both the complainants. Due to severity of injury the pain and sufferings of both the complainants are also severe in nature and for which we assess ` 50,000 each as compensation to both the complainants. Regarding loss of earnings, the complainant in 209/05 produced Ext.A10 salary certificate, which shows that the complainant is an Arabic teacher and is drawing a salary of ` 9722 and was retired from service on 31.05.2004 and due to severe nature he has loss of earnings and other losses for which we assess ` 50,000 and hence the complainant in C.C.209/05 is entitled to get ` 2,25,000 an insurance claim from 3rd opposite party. The complainant in C.C.210/05 contended that she is earning ` 2,000 per month, but not produced any documents to this effect. So the complainant in C.C.210/05 is entitled to get ` 1,75,000 towards the insurance claim from 3rd opposite party. The complainants are also entitled to get ` 2,000 each as litigation expenses from 3rd opposite party. So the issues 2 to 4 are found in favour of the complainants.
In the result C.C.209/05 is allowed directing the 3rd opposite party to pay ` 2,25,000 (Rupees Two lakhs twenty five thousand only) as claim amount to the complainant with ` 2,000 (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
In the result C.C.210/05 is allowed directing the 3rd opposite party to pay ` 1,75,000 (Rupees One lakh seventy five thousand only) as claim amount to the complainant with ` 2,000 (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
C.C.No.209/2005
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1 Series. 1 to 69 documents from Baby Memorial Hospital, Kozhikode.
A2. Discharge card.
A3. Warranty card for LPG stove.
A4 Series. 1 to 52 Medical bills.
A5. Discharge summary.
A6. Registration slip.
A7. Letter from Oriental Insurance to IOC.
A8. Copy of the front page of the gas consumer card.
A9. Copy of ration card.
A10. Pay Certificate of Complainant
Exhibits for the opposite party
B1. Copy of customer history card dated 11.09.05.
B2. Duplicate copy of refill voucher dated 10.08.03.
B3. Copy of lawyer notice dated 04.08.05.
B4. Copy of insurance policy dated 20.11.03.
B5. Copy of intimation letter dated 12.08.03.
B6. Letter dated 14.11.03
B7. Policy schedule.
B8. Public liability policy of oil industries.
Exhibits for the Court
X1. Medical Summary
X2. Medical Summary.
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1. Complainant
Witness examined for the opposite party
DW1. T.R. Gopi
DW2. T.G. Sreenivasan Nair
DW3. K.P. Raghavan
C.C.No.210/2005
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1 Series. 1 to 69 documents from Baby Memorial Hospital, Kozhikode.
A2. Discharge card.
A3. Warranty card for LPG stove.
A4 Series. 1 to 50 Medical bills.
A5. Discharge summary.
A6. Registration slip.
A7. Letter from Oriental Insurance to IOC.
A8. Copy of the front page of the gas consumer card.
A9. Copy of ration card.
A10. Pay Certificate of Complainant
Exhibits for the opposite party
B1. Copy of customer history card dated 11.09.05.
B2. Duplicate copy of refill voucher dated 10.08.03.
B3. Copy of lawyer notice dated 04.08.05.
B4. Copy of insurance policy dated 20.11.03.
B5. Copy of intimation letter dated 12.08.03.
B6. Letter dated 14.11.03
B7. Policy schedule.
B8. Public liability policy of oil industries.
Exhibits for the Court
X1. Medical Summary
X2. Medical Summary.
Witness examined for the complainant
P. Mammad
Witness examined for the opposite party
DW1. T.R. Gopi
DW2. T.G. Sreenivasan Nair
DW3. K.P. Raghavan
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
