Shri A.K.Patra,President:

1. The captioned consumer complaint is filed by the complainant named above inter alia alleging negligence & deficiency in service on the part of the Ops for non release of insurance benefit under Public Liability Insurance Policy claimed on account of death of his wife Nilotpala jal & injuries  to son Ashis Kumar Jal sustained in a fire accident occurred while using LPG there in the residence of complainant.
2. The Complainant seeks for an order directing the ops to pay Rs. 40,00,000/-(forty  lakh)  towards accidental death of his wife Nilotpala Lal, Rs.5,00,000/-towards medical expense for treatment of son Ashis Kumar Jal,  Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for physical pain & mental agony and Rs.25,000/- towards cost of this litigation with  interest @ 12% p.a over the awarded amount and further prayed for all other relief(s) as the Hon’ble  Commission may deem fit and proper.
3. It is stated that, cause of action for this complainant arose on 12.04.2020 when the fire incident occurred in the house of the petitioner and subsequent dates when the death of the complainant’s wife was intimated to the Op 2 dt. 26.04.2020 with a request to release insurance benefit and the e-mail sent to the OP1 by the OP2 dt.26.04.2020 for necessary action to release insurance benefit was not responded.
4. The facts in brief as stated in the complaint petition & emerged from the documents available there on the records are that:- the complainant is a consumer of  LPG Indene vide Consumer No. 14680 & LPG Gas Card vide Sl.No.124398722804 being supplied by the Op 2(two ) at Bhawanipatna ,the authorised dealer of Op 1 (one) ,for  his  household purpose. On dt.12.04.2020 at about 7.45A.M while the son of the complainant Ashish Kumar Jal was changing the regulator suddenly gas liked from the cylinder. The cylinder fall down on the floor and spark thereby fire cut on the cylinder. Due to fire  on cylinder the wife of the complainant namely Nilotala Jal severely sustained  burn injury of more than 95% of her body and the son Ashis has also received severe burn injury. Soon after the incident the injured were shifted to District Head Quarter Hospital, Bhawanipatna and matter was reported to the OP 2. Matter is also reported to the town PS Bhawanipatna vide G.D No.005 dt13/04/2020. On receiving intimation the local fire brigade was  rushed to the place of occurrence & extinguish the fire. After receiving preliminary treatment there in DHH, Bhawanipatna the injured were shifted to Burla Medical College Hospital and then to IGH Rourkela where the wife of the complainant succumbed to the injury on 15.04.2020 . An UD case bearing No.169/2020 was registered for said un natural death of wife of the complainant at Rourkela . The incident of death of Nilotala Jal  was also intimated to the OP 2 on dt.26.04.2020 with a prayer for taking necessary steps to release the insurance benefit. The son Shri Ashis Kumar Jal undergone treatment at IGH Rourkela for which around Rs.3,50,000/- was spent. It is further stated that, due to said fire incident the household goods worth of Rs.1,50,000/- were damaged. It is alleged that, fire incident occurred due to sudden leakage of gas from cylinder while using it in the premises of the complainant. It is further submitted that, there is a public liability insurance policy with ICICI Lumbard General Insurance Company Ltd/ OP 3 to indemnify the injuries sustained by the consumer of LPG caused in any accident while using LPG as such the complainant is entitle to get insurance benefit but not yet released due to deficient service & unfair trade practice there on the part of Ops . Hence, this Complaint.
5.  To substantiate his  claim the complainant has relied on the following documents and filed the self attested true copy of the same as evidence in support of his claim :-(i)Copy of application dt.26.04.2020 made to the OP 2 (ii) Copy of e-mail dt.26.04.2020 from S.S.Chand,Proprietor Super Gas Bhawanipatna /OP 2(two) to Debabrata Mohanty, Authorized representative of  OP 1(one) , (iii) Copy of extract of GD No.005 dt.13.04.2020 of Bhawanipatna Town Police Station Dist.Kalahandi,(iv) copy of fire incident certificate vide letter No.617/Bpt FS dt.6.04.2021 issued from the Asst. Fire Officer, Bhawanipatna Fire Station,(v) Copy of Death Certificate of Nilotpala Jal, W/o Tankadhar Jal dt.14.05.2020 issued from the Register, Birth & Death Rourkela Municipal Corporation,(vi)Copy of discharge summary of Ashish Kumar Jal dt.4.5.2020 issued from Ispat General Hospital, Rourkela Steel Plant, SAIL,(vii) Copy of final report vide Sl.No.19 dt.14.06.2020 on the First Information Report No.19 dt.16.04.2020 of IIC,Sector-19,PS Rourkela,(viii)Copy of challan of handed over of dead body of Nilotpala Jal dt.15.04.2020,(ix)Copy of voter ID card vide No.OR/14/099/218590 of deceased Nilotopala Jal,(x) Copy of Certified copy of FIR, Final report, Inquest Report, dead body challan, PM report of deceased Nilotopala Jal vide UDGR No.169/2020 obtained from the CSI, Rourkela,(xi) copy of insurance policy schedule vide policy No.4008/199122230/00/000 for the period of ^1st April,2022 to 21.3.2023 issued from ICICI Lumbard General Insurance Company Ltd/Op 3, (xii) Copy of refill order (DBC) booking date 29.06.2021,(xiii)copy of LPG Gas Card vide Sl.No.124398722804 vide Consumer No.14680 issued on 20.06.2000 to the consumer Tankadhar Jal and (XIV) copy of prescription & treatment detail as per the list of document dt.16.10.2023  filed by the petitioner No.2(two) ( 33 Nos). So also the complaint petition is supported by an affidavit of complainant No.1(one) Shri Tankadhar Jal.
6. On being notice, Ops have appeared through their learned counsels and filed their respective written version on time as prescribed under C.P Act.
7. The Op 1(one) in his written version admitted the facts that, the complainant is a consumer of LPG being supplied by OP 2(two), the authorised dealer of OP 1(one). It is submitted that, the claim is barred by law of limitation not tenable in the eye of law and that, there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of Ops and there is no cause of action for this complaint as such complaint is deserved to be dismissed with cost. On merits it is submitted that, the OP 1 (one) has not received any intimation of the incident of gas leakage in the premises of the complainant causing any injuries to the consumer/complainant, so also the complainant has not lodged any claim before the OP 1(one). It is only after receiving of notice from this Hon’ble Commission on dt.2.1.2023 the OP 1(one) for the first time came to know about  the incident and soon after receiving of this notice from the Hon’ble Commission the OP 1 appointed investigator .The complainant on dt.5.1.2023 stated before the investigating team that, on 12.04.2020 when  his wife deceased Nioltpala Jal tried to fit a new pressure regulator (PR) on the LPG regulator the incident occurred and it further stated that, the incident caused solely due to negligence of the wife & son of the complainant and there is no deficiency of  service on the part of the OP 1(one). The complainant had never registered any leakage complaint/incident report with the Ops so also never intimate about alleged accident to the OP 1(one) prior to receiving of this notice from this Commission. It is further submitted that, OP 2(two) being the distributor is duty bound to intimate the incident to the OP 1(one) earliest. It is further submitted that, as per the term &  condition governing loan of cylinders and pressure regulator mentioned in the subscription voucher issued to the customer the Corporation(OP1) shall not be liable for any loss or damage to the person or property as a result of installation or use of gas by the consumer. Since the alleged LPG incident was not reported forthwith to OP 1(one) or OP 2(two) by the complainant, it is   evident that, the petitioner has failed to comply with the term & condition governing the loan of cylinders and pressure regulator mentioned on the subscription voucher and the said claim is not acceptable. However,the Op1 has admitted the facts that , the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd has obtained a Public Liability Insurance Policy from ICICI Lumbard, General Insurance Company Ltd. vide Policy bearing No.4008/199122230/00/000 for the period of 1^st April,2020 to 31^st March,2021 for coverage of  risk of loss/ damage arising out of the usage of LPG cylinder and further submits that, on receiving of notice from the Hon’ble Commission on 02.01.2023 the OP 1(one) immediately lodged the insurance claim with ICICI Lumbard General Insurance Co.Ltd vides Claim No. LIA051221109 dt.4.1.2023 but no further communication on the claim intimation has been received from the insurance company till date. It is further stated that, the appointment of Distributer is on principal to principal basis for sale of LPG and IOCL as such the Op 1 cannot be held responsible for any act or omission /commission of the distributor, if any  and further quoted the clauses of 17 & 18 Distributorship Agreement shifted its liability to Op 2 to indemnify the injuries sustained to the third party if any while using LPG
8. The Op 1(one), to substantiate his pleadings has relied the  following documents :- (i) Accident Investigation Report-Format A dt.05.01.2023,(ii)Accident Investigation Report-Format-B dt.09.01.2023, (iii) Fire incident Certificate dt.06.04.2021,(iv) Extract of GD No.005 dt.13.04.2020 of Bhawanipatna Town PS,(v) Statement of incident dt.05.01.2023 of the petitioner,(vi) Extract of DGCC of the petitioner,(vii) UD Case No.169/20 along with final report &PM Report ,(viii) UID of petitioner, spouse and son,(viii) Customer History card as per SDMS records,(ix) Claim Intimation No.LIA051221109 dt.04.01.2023 along with copy of claim application lodged with M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance/OP No.3,(x) Insurance Policy No.4008/199122230/00/000 for the period 01.04.2020 till 31.03.2021 there with M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance ,Mumbai,(xi) Inter office Memo dt 05/09/2017 (xii)Distributorship agreement dt.03.08.2017 executed with M/s Super Gas, Bhawanipatna. (xiii)  LPG Manual, for perusal .
9.  The OP 2(two) in their written version has admitted the facts that, the complainant is a consumer of LPG being supplied by him, the authorised distributor of OP 1(one). It is submitted that, intimation of the fir incident in the house of the complainant occurred on dt. 12.04.2020 was received by the Op 2(two) on the same date and the Op2 (two) intimate the matter to Debabrata Mohanty Sales  Officer of OP 1(one) on the same date at about 1.20 p.m through e-mail. It is further  stated that, after returning from Roulkela the complainant also gave a written intimation to the OP2 regarding death of his wife which has been forwarded to the Op No 1(one) immediately for needful action and that, the Op 2 is not deficient in service .
10. The Op 2 (two), to substantiate the contention of his written version has relied on the following documents: - (a) true copy of e-mail dt 12.04.2020 ,(b) true copy of intimation dt.26.04.2020 .The Self attested true copy of  those documents are placed on the record for perusal. The contentions of the written version are also supported by an affidavit of one Sri.Sasanka Sekhar Chand , the Proprietor ,Super Gas ,Bhawanipatna.
11. The OP 3(three)/ICICI Lumbard GIC Ltd filed their written version and additional written version with notes of arguments denying the entire contention of the complaint petition and asked the complainant to prove the contention of complainant petition & documents relied by  the complaint. The Op 3 preliminarily challenged the maintainability of this complaint stating therein that, the complaint is barred by the principal of estoppels, waivers, acquiescence, limitation non joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party. So also complaint does not come under the preview of the C.P.Act and urged to dismiss this complaint. It is stated that, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP 3(three). It is further stated that, as per the terms of the policy it is the duty of the customer /insured to give written notice to the insurer as soon as reasonable practicable of any claim up to last date of policy period or extended reporting period but not exceeding 90 days from the date of incident and shall give additional information as company may require. Every claim, writ, summon or process and all documents relating to the event shall be forwarded to the company immediately they are received to the insured to settle any claim. But here in this case no such intimation is received by the insurance company either from the complainant or from distributer or any other person till received of the notice from this Hon’ble Commission. It is further submits that, soon after receiving of notice from this Hon’ble Commission the answering Op inquired the mater and also sent mail to the Dy. General Manager Complaint Redressal (LPG) HQ Mumbai where upon the Dy. General Manager categorically informed the Op that, “no intimation was received from the customer or distributer regarding the accident and accordingly not intimated to insurance company.” Apart from this the complainant has not intimate the matter to the op3 through any toll free number or through e-mail. As such there is no cause of action arose for this complaint against the OP 3 (three) / Insurance Company.  The present complaint is premature liable to be dismissed. It is specifically pleaded by the Op 3(three) that, prior to receiving of the notice of this consumer complaint from this Hon’ble Commission the OP 3/Insurance Company has not received any information regarding alleged incident from any corner though it is the duty of the consumer/complainant so also it is the duty there on the part of the of OP 1(one) &  2(two)  to intimate the insurance company regarding alleged incident as such there is no negligence or deficiency in service contributed on the part of the OP 3(three) and urged to dismissed this complaint against the answering OP 3 with cost .The written version of OP 3 is supported by an affidavit of one Sri.Suresh Das ,Senior Manager ,Legal, ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd, Cuttack. The Op3 has cited the judgement dt.16/08/2021 of SCDRC,Delhi  passed in the case of Rhri Gian Gupta vrs Delhi Develop Authority and urged to dismissed the complaint as it being time barred .  
12. During hearing of the case the both parties have lead their evidence on affidavit as prescribed under C.P.Act
13. The complainant Tankadhar Jal , to   prove his stand , has filed additional affidavit evidence, the contention of which is corroborating with the averment of the complaint petition, is taken in to consideration.
14. The Op 1(one) has  filed  an additional  evidence affidavit of one Sri.Sudipt Mohan Das  ,the Divisional LPG Head .Sambalpur Indan Divisional Office Sambalpur ,Odisha  ,averment of which are  corroborating with the facts stated there in the  writing version of the OP 1 is taken in to consideration.
15. The Op 3 has also filed an additional evidence affidavit of one Sri Suresh Das, Manager Legal, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. Cuttack, contention of   which are corroborating with the facts stated there in the writing version of the OP 3 is taken in to consideration.
16. No evidence on affidavit as prescribed under C.P.Act is filed by the OP 2(two) though takes part in the hearing of this case.
17. Heard. Peruse the material on record. We have our thoughtful consideration to the submission of rival parties.
18. Here the point for consideration before this Commission are :- (i) Whether the complainant is a consumer of Ops ? (ii) Whether there is any cause of action to bring this complain? (iii) Whether complain is barred by limitation, (iv) whether complainant is maintainable under C.P.Act within the jurisdiction of this Commission? (v) Whether complainant sustained any injuries while using LPG in his residence premises, (vi) Whether the complainant has intimated the incident earliest to the Ops? (vii) Whether the complainant is entitled for insurance benefit?  (viii) Whether any negligence & deficient service there on the part of Ops for which the complainants have not yet received their entitlement of insurance benefits and suffered injuries? (ix) And whether the complainant is entitle for the relief(s) as claimed?

FINDINGS

19.  Issue No: - (i) whether the complainant is a consumer of Ops? This Commission found that, the complainant is a consumer of LPG being supplied by OP 2(two), the authorized distributor of OP 1(one), for domestic purpose is not disputed. It is also not disputed rather, admitted the facts that, the OP 1(one) availed a Public Liability Insurance Policy vide Policy Scheduled vide Policy No. 4008/199122230/00/000 for the period of 1^st April 2020 to 31^st March 2021 from OP 3(three) which cover the risk of LPG consumers/complainant to indemnify the injuries in person or property if any sustained while using LPG in the premises of the consumer during policy period. It is also not disputed that, complainants being the husband & son are the legal personal of deceased Nilotpala Jal. As such it is proved on admission that, the complainants are a consumer of the Op 1& 2 so also beneficiaries under the aforesaid Public Liability Insurance Policy there with the OP3/ICICI Lumbard, General Insurance Company Ltd.
20. Issue No:- (v) whether complainant sustained any injuries while using LPG in her residence premises? Ccomplainants have proved the contentions of the complainant petition by filling additional affidavit evidence. The truthness of the documents relied by the complainant is proved on affidavit of the complainant. The accident investigation report duly conducted by the authorised personnel of the OP 1(one) placed on record so also the undisputed documentary evidence such as:-Report ref.no.617/BPTFSdt.06/04/2021 of the office of the Fire Brigade ,Bhawanipatna has mentioned the cause of fire is due to LPG leakage . So also Bhawanipatna Town Police in its report dt.27/05/2020 has mentioned the cause of fire is due to accidental leakage of LPG gas cylinder. Rourkela Police in its Investigation report dt.14/06/2020 has mentioned that, the victim Smt Nilotpala Jal was changing the regulator  of gas cylinder ,which has caused accidental fire due to leakage of LPG gas ,which caused accidental burn injuries to her body and her son ,Sri Ashish Jal .The death certificate of deceased Nilotpala Jal  , Inquest & PM report of deceased Nilotpala  jal & other police paper in UD GRNo.169/2020, medical papers placed on the record clearly proved that , Nilotpala  jal/ the wife of complainant Tankadhar Jal succumbed to the burn injuries on 15.04.2020  sustained burn injuries in the alleged accident dt.12.04.2020 caused while using LPG/while the cylinder is being connected to LPG installation in the residential  premises of the consumer /complainants and so also no contradictory material is placed on the record to disbelieve the same .
21.  The accident investigation report in Form-A dt. 05/01/2023 & Form –B dt.09/01/2023 duly conducted by the authorised personnel of the OP 1(one)  placed on record so also it is  proved on affidavit by the complainant that, his son Ashish Jal /complainant no 2(two) sustained burn injuries in the said incident of gas tragedy and  he was taken to the nearest hospital to DHH, Bhawanipatna and then to Ispat General Hospital Roulkela Steel Plant ,SAIL  where he undergone treatment from dt.13.04.2020 to 04.05.2020./ The self attested   Discharge certificate along with other medical papers filed as per list of documents dt.16.10.2023 of the complainant remain un-challenge/ un-rebutted clearly proved that, the complainants has spend minimum Rs. 1,93,221.27/- for the treatment of the complainant 2(two) and no contradictory material is placed on the record to disbelieve the same. Issue No v answered  accordingly goes in favour of the complainant.
22. The  extract of GD No.005 dt.13.04.2020 of Bhawanipatna Town Police Station Dist.Kalahandi,  copy of fire incident certificate vide letter No.617/Bpt FS dt.6.04.2021 issued from the Asst. Fire Officer, Bhawanipatna Fire Station(and filed as evidence by the complainant remain un-rebutted clearly proved that, the matter is immediately informed to the law enforcing agency and the Fire men , Bhawanipatna Fire Station attend to extinguish the fire has reported that, house along with house hold properties of Sri Tankadhar Jal /complainant got damage in the incident .Accordingly this Commission  cannot denied damages of properties in the incident. The averment of the complainant that, due to fire incident he sustained damages of properties worth Rs.1,50,00/ is proved on affidavit remain un-rebutted and no contradictory material is placed on the record to disbelieve the same.
23. The OP 2(two) in their written version has admitted the facts that, the fire incident in the house of the complainant dt. 12.04.2020 was intimated to them/Op 2 on the same date and they attend the place of occurrence soon after receiving on intimation. The Op2 has intimated the matter to Debabrata Mohanty, Sales  Officer of OP 1(one) on the same date at about1.20 p.m through e-mail remain un-rebutted. Copy of e-mail dt. 12.04.2020 ,time:1.20 p.m remain un-rebutted. The op 2 also admitted the facts that , after returning from Roulkela the complainant gave a written intimation regarding death of his wife which has been forwarded to the Op No 1(one) earliest on the same date remain un-rebutted  .The Op 2 (two), to substantiate his contention of written version, has relied on and filed the  e-mail dt 12.04.2020 and  copy of intimation dt.26.04.2020 and Copy of e-mail dt.26.04.2020 from S.S.Chand,Proprietor Super Gas Bhawanipatna /OP 2(two) to Debabrata Mohanty, Authorized representative of  OP 1  which are supported by an affidavit of one Sri.Sasanka Sekhar Chand ,the Proprietor ,Super Gas ,Bhawanipatna remain un-rebutted clearly proved that, the matter of incident/gas tragedy was intimated to the Op 1 & 2 earliest. It is also proved from the acknowledgement of Claim intimation vide claim reference no:LIA051221109 under policy No.. 4008/220359545/01 placed on the record along with Claim application Form that, Sri.Debabrata Mohanty has been working as Mgr.(LPG-S),Bhawanipatna LSA Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (MD).  Neither the any investigators nor  Mr.Debabrata Mohanty, the authorized representative of  OP 1  to whom afore said E-mail were successfully sent is examined as such  the opinion of the investigation report vide Form –A and Form –B that, consumer has not reported about the Fire accident to the OP 1 & 2 is not admissible rather rejected.  The contention of the OP1 (one) that, he has not received any intimation of the incident of gas leakage in the premises of the complainant causing injuries to person & property is not admissible. So also the submission of OP 1(one) that, complainant has not lodged any claim before the OP 1(one) and that, Op 1 was not intimated about the incident is not admissible. Issue No (v)&(vi) answered in favour of the complainant.

24. Learned counsel for the OP 1 draws our attention over the  LPG Manual place on the record which  cast an obligation on the distributer /OP2(two) that ,the distributer should immediately informed his/her insurance company to take care of any third-party claim which arises out of the accident and that, the distributor should assist consumer/Legal heirs to fill insurance claim from along with the necessary supporting documents as advised by the insurance company .But we have  found that, such an obligation is cast on the Op 2 as per the clause 19 of the agreement there made between OP 1 &2 ,(copy of which is placed on the record vide annexure –xii) with respect to insurance policy taken soly by the Op2 (two). As such submission of learned Counsel for the Op 1 is not acceptable.
25. It is found that, nothing pleaded or proved that, the Op 2 had not taken any insurance policy as per the terms of clause 19  of the agreement there between the Op1& 2 placed on record . Rather it is proved that ,the OP2 has  knowledge of existing Public liability insurance policy vide Policy Scheduled vide Policy No. 4008/199122230/00/000 for the period of ^1st April 2020 to 3^1st March 2021 . It is proved that , the Op 2 has  taken proper  steps to  assists the consumer/Legal heirs by intimating the incident earlier on dt 12.04.2020 to the Op 1 for early claim of insurance benefit payable to the victims .The inter office memo dt.05/09/2017 vide Sl no ;XI of the list of documents filed by the Op1 clearly cast an obligation on the field officer /Area Manager of the OP1 to give information to the Insurance company for release of insurance benefit there under Public Liability Insurance Policy taken by OMCS earliest on receiving of first information .It is roved that, op 2 has successfully sent e-mail to the authorised representative of the Op earliest dt 12.04.2020  & subsequently on dt.26.04.2020 to the Op 1 authorities but they have neglected to informed the same to   the Insurance company earliest and have not taken necessary steps for release of insurance benefit to the victim of a LPG leak accident clearly proved deficient service there on the part of the Op 1(one) towards the consumer/complaints. Hence, this commission is of the opinion that, there is negligence & deficient service on the part of Op No 1(one) is proved for which the complainants have not yet received their entitlement of insurance benefits. Issued No (viii) is decided accordingly.
26. It may not be denied that, it is natural for all human being first to go for treatment of the injuries & then to go for reporting the matter to the concern authority for realising of insurance benefit which may caused delayed in giving intimation to the insurer.
27. Learned counsel for the complainant draws the attention of this Commission that:- law is well settled that, it is not proper to deny genuine claim of insurance benefit to the insured/beneficiary solely on the ground of delayed intimation when the incident is promptly reported to the law enforcing agency. Here in this case the matter is immediately informed to the distributor/op 2  who communicated the same to the Op 1 earliest is proved, so also the matter is informed to the local police station as well as local fire station earlier who attended the accident  immediately & extinguish the fire and reported damages of house & property of the complainants. The complainant sustained injuries &  sustained loss of properties during policy period is proved  as such this Commission is of the opinion that, the complainants are entitle to get insurance benefit and the  insurance company/OP3 is liable to release the insurance benefit to the complainant under afore said undisputed Public Liability Insurance Policy. Issue No: (vii) is decide & answered in favour of the complainant.
28. Learned counsel for the complainant again draws attention of this Commission over claim procedure in respect of a general insurance policy and  for settlement of insurance claim stipulated there under section 15 of  Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests) Regulations, 2017  and submits that, the OP 3 Insurance Company has not denied the insurance police so also not disputed the facts that, the accident occurred within the insurance period as such the OP3/insurance company on receiving of the information of the incident is duty bound to depute Surveyor/Investigator to investigate the matter and to assess the nature & extent of injury sustained and to settled the claim within 30 days of receiving of surveyor report. In the event the claim is not settled within 30 days as stipulated above, the insurer shall be liable to pay interest at a rate, which is 2% above the bank rate from the date of receipt of last relevant and necessary document from the insured/claimant by insurer till the date of actual payment.
29. It is found that, though it  is proved from the pleadings & evidence on record that, neither OP 1 & 2 nor the complainant has ever informed the incident to the OP3/Insurance Company or have lodged claim before the insurance company /OP 3 before  dt.4.1.2023 but it is seen that, even after receiving of notice of this complaint & appearing in this case and after receiving of claim vide number LIA051221109 dt dt.4.1.2023 the Op3/Insurance company has nothing pleaded or material placed on record to hold that, they  Op 3/Insurance company has ever taken any steps or have depute any surveyor to conduct survey of the incident to assess the injuries/loss   sustained by the complainant in the said incident occurred during policy period clearly proved the negligence & deficient service their on the part of the Op 3/Insurance company. Issue No viii decided accordingly.
30. On perusal of undisputed policy scheduled vide policy No. No.4008/199122230/00/000 for the period of ^1st April,2022 to 21.3.2023 there with the ICICI Lumbard General Insurance Company Ltd/Op 3 placed on the record it is fount that, the policy covered personal injury and property damaged due to any accident occurred while using of LPG in the premises of the customer as follows:- (a) for personal accident(death) :-Rs.6 (six) lakhs per person per event,(b) Medical expenses :-Rs 30(thirty)  Lakhs per event (maximum Rs.2 lakhs per event ,immediate relief up to Rs 25,000/-per person),(c) Property Damage:-Maximum Rs.2 Lakhs per event at authorized customer’s registered premises ,(d) Per year:-Rs 20 Crores. 
31. The claim of the complainants is at higher side. Based on above discussion and as per norms of the subject insurance police this Commission is of the opinion that, the  complainants is entitled to get only Rs.6(six)  lakhs only for the death of his wife Nilotpala Jal and Rs.1,93,221/-only towards medical expenses for treatment of his son  Ashish Kumar Jal  and Rs. 1,50,000/- only towards damaged of property sustained there in the alleged accident . Issue No vii goes in favour of the complainants.
32. This commission earlier vide order dt. 20.07.2023 has admitted this complainant with following observation:- Cause of action of this complaint arose on 12.04.2020 and later on   15.04.2020 when the wife of the complainant succumbed to the injury sustained  due to fire broken while using LPG cylinder  and this complaint is presented on 16.12.2022 alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops  for non release of insurance benefit. As per Section 69 of C.P.Act,2019, Consumer complaint is to be filed within two years from the date of  cause of action has arisen. Accordingly this complaint ought to have filed within two years i.e. within 16.04.2022 but admittedly complaint is filed on 16.12.2022. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Misc. Case No.21 & 29 of 2022 in the matter of extension of limitation due to Covid -19 situation on 10.01.2022 has directed in continuation of earlier order dt.08.03.21,27.04.21 and 23.09.21 that, the period from 15.03.20 till 28.02.2022 shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any law –  General Laws or  Special Laws  in respect of judicial or quasi judicial proceeding(2022) 1 TMI 385(SC).In view of above said order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, we found that this complaint is filed well within the Limitation period. The submission of the Ops that complaint is barred by law of limitation is hereby rejected.
33. Admittedly insurance policy has been taken by the OP 1(one) ensuring insurance benefit to the consumers of LPG but nothing cogent evidence placed on the record to hold that, either OP 1 has ever lodged the insurance claim with ICICI Lumbard General Insurance Co.Ltd earlier. The claim number LIA051221109 dt dt.4.1.2023 is not yet settled as such this Commission is of the opinion that, there is stuffiest cause of action continued to present this complainant and it is filed on 16/12/2022  found on time as prescribed under C.P.Act. Hence, issue no. ii goes in favour of the complainants.
34. This complainant is presented before this commission under the jurisdiction of which the complainant is residing as well as the Op carries   their business  such we are of the opinion that, this complaint is well within the jurisdiction of this Commission maintainable under C.P.Act . Issue no.iv is answered accordingly.
35. Based on the above discussion, this Commission is concluding its  Opinion that, the complainants are consumer of Ops sustained injuries while using LPG/whilst the cylinder is being connected to LPG installation  in their residence premises, entitled to get release of insurance benefit there under the said Public Liability Insurance Policy but due to negligence & deficient service on the part of Op 1(one) & 3 (three) the complainants have not yet received their entitlement of insurance benefits certainly caused  a lot of mental agony which cannot be assess ,however, award of punitive damages payable to the complainants not less than one lakhs each by the OP1&3 may heal the injury some extents as such the Op no 1&3  are jointly & severely liable to compensate the complainant accordingly.  This commission found no negligence or deficient there on the part of the OP 2 (two). However, claim of the complainant is at higher side, hence allowed in part with following orders :-

                                ORDER

This consumer complaint is allowed in part against the Op 1(one) & 3(three) and dismissed against the Op 2(two) on contest with the following directions:-

1. The OP 3 (three) / ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd is hereby directed to release a total some of Rs. 9,43,000/-(nine lakhs forty-three thousand )-only  to the complainants as insurance  benefit with interest @ 6% p.a from the date of filling of this complaint
2. The Op 1(one) is hereby  directed to pay  Rs 1,00,000/-(one lakh ) as punitive damages  to the complainant towards financial hardship  & mental agony  suffered due to their negligence & deficient service which include cost of this litigation .
3. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of received of this order failing which the Ops shall be liable to pay interest @18 % p.a over the awarded amount till its actual payment to the complainant.

Dictated and corrected by me.

      President

                   I   agree.

                                        Member   

Pronounced, in the open Commission today on this 2nd May,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission. The pending application if any is also stands disposed off accordingly.

Judgment could not be pronounced on time in want of quorum.  The judgment be uploaded forthwith in the website of the Commission and free copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download the same from the Confonet  to treat the same as copy of the order received from this Commission .Ordered accordingly.