ORDER

Per – Hon’ble Mr. Shashikant A. Kulkarni, Presiding Judicial Member

          This is a consumer complaint filed under Section-17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CP Act).

          Complainants are the legal representatives of deceased Mr. Kuttan Prabhakaran M. P.  They together formed an undivided family.  According to the Complainants, they had a domestic gas connection booked with the Opposite Party No.1, vide Consumer No.HP-618 & HP-616.

          There was an incident due to explosion of gas-cylinder that took place on 14/08/2000 at about 05:20 a.m.  Due to said explosion, the building collapsed.  Slab of the first floor came down.  Complainant No.1 suffered injury and her daughter too, requiring treatment.  Mr. Kuttan Prabhakaran M. P., husband of the Complainant No.1 also sustained injuries.  He was admitted to a hospital.  However, no amount of treatment could survive him.  Thus, there was loss to property and loss of life due to explosion.

          Opposite Party No.2 is the franchisee of the Opposite Party No.1, which has entered into an agreement with the Opposite Party No.3 for indemnification of the losses due to perils and to pay damages.

          Complainants have submitted statement of claim to include amount of Rs.4,40,000/- towards property loss, an amount of Rs.7,20,000/- towards human loss, Rs.2,17,000/- and odd towards loss of household items and an amount of Rs.14,000/- towards reimbursement of medical expenses.  Thus, the Complainants have in all claimed an amount of Rs.13,91,000/- and odd from the Opposite Parties, jointly & severally.

          Complainants relied upon police investigation papers dated 14/08/2000, which include statement of the Complainant No.1, inquest ‘Panchanama’ etc.  There was an investigation into the blast by Assistant Manager Safety & Civil Defence Officer, H. A. Ltd., Pimpri.  His report is also filed on record.  Medical case-papers of the injured person together with policy of insurance availed by the Opposite Party No.2 from the Opposite Party No.3 is placed on record.

          Except the affidavit-in-reply to the contents, without written version, of the Manager of the Opposite Party No.1, there is no contest in the case.

          No written versions are filed on record.

          This is an old consumer complaint filed in the year 2001.  It was taken out from sine-die list.  Thereafter, notices were issued to the Complainants as well as to the Opposite Parties.  Parties were directed to finally argue the complaint on the basis of material available on record in the light of circumstances and facts.

          We have heard learned Adv. Smt. Thara Damodhar Nair on behalf of the Complainants and learned Adv. Rhishikesh Ganu on behalf of the Opposite Party No.3. (Insurance Company).  We did not have the benefit of hearing anyone behalf of the Opposite Parties Nos.1 and 2.  We have also carefully perused the material placed on record.

          We take the points that arise for our consideration and record our findings there-against as below for the reasons to follow:-

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

          Indisputably explosion took place causing damage to the property and loss of life.  Opposite Party No.2 had drawn an insurance policy for loss of or damage to contents due to fire & allied perils.  Policy contemplates indemnification of losses due to explosion.  Opposite Party No.2 is the Insured.

          Coverage given to incur liability to third parties for any damage to make the loss good at any registered address of the customer.  Complainants are the customers of the Opposite Party No.1.

          Complainants state, supported by a statement on oath in paragraph (02) that, the Complainants are the ‘consumers’ of the Opposite Parties Nos.1 and 2, which is not refuted.  When there is no denial of the fact of the explosion resulting into losses, as alleged, it shall be lawful for this Commission to observe that in view of terms of contract of indemnity inter-se between the Opposite Parties Nos.2 and 3, losses to the customers, at their registered address, shall be made good as if the Complainants are the contracting parties and there was a short-coming on the part of the Opposite Parties Nos.1 and 2 to properly maintain and keep a watch to avoid such explosion to make them liable for charge of deficiency in service on their part.  Thus, the Complainants are entitled to get the compensation from the Opposite Parties, jointly or severally. 

          As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, deceased was of 55 years of age.  There is no document available on record about his regular earnings, though stated to be a trader.  In view of settled position, notional income may be to the extent of Rs.5,000/- per month to maintain his family and also applying in principle the concept of ‘multiplier’, we are of the view to grant compensation on all counts as detailed below:-

(a)      For loss of life       =

          Rs.5,000/- per month X 12 months = Rs.60,000/- per year.

          Therefore, Rs.60,000/- per year X 06 (multiplier)     =       Rs.3,60,000/-

(b)     For loss of property and damage to household articles =

          (In absence of any documentary evidence to show

          amount spent on repairs)                                        =       Rs.3,00,000/-

(c)     Reimbursement of medical expenses

          (In absence of any receipts)                                   =       Rs.*15,000/-

                                                                                                ___________

                                                Total =                                     Rs.6,75,000/-

                                                                                                ==========

          Amount of Rs.6,75,000/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a., as from the date of complaint viz. 03/09/2001.

          Matter of recovering the amounts, if paid by the Opposite Parties Nos.1 and 2, they are at a liberty to recover it as per terms & conditions of the insurance policy from the Opposite Party No.3, by resorting to remedy available to them under law.

          Hence, the following:-

ORDER

The consumer complaint is partly allowed.

Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 3 shall jointly & severally shall pay to the Complainants jointly, an amount of Rs.6,75,000/- (Rupees Six Lacs Seventy Five Thousand Only) together with interest thereon @ 7.5% p.a. as from the date of complaint viz. 03^rd September, 2001 till realization of the amounts by the Complainants within a period of sixty days from the date of this order.

Opposite Parties shall bear their own costs and shall pay to the Complainants, costs quantified at Rs.25,000/-

Pronounced on 11^th June, 2015