O R D E R

        Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (for short, “BPL”) and Laxmi Gas Agency, the Manufacturer and Distributor respectively of the Liquid Petroleum Gas Cylinder (LPG), have preferred these Revision Petitions, questioning the correctness of orders dated 22.03.2014 passed by the Chhatisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Raipur in Appeal Nos. 636 to 640 of 2013.  By the said orders, the State Commission has allowed the Appeals filed by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. against orders dated 18.10.2013 made by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur in Complaints case No. 195 to 199 of 2012 awarding compensation to the Complainants, payable jointly and severally by the Manufacturer, Distributor and the Insurance Company.

2.     The main issue arising for consideration in these Revision Petitions being identical, all the cases are being disposed of by this common order.

3.     According to the Complainants (husband and wife) on 03.03.2011, when they opened the nozzle cap of a new re-filled gas cylinder, because of leakage the gas came in contact with a burning agarbatti and the fire engulfed the room, causing extensive damage. Electricity wires also caught fire and lights went off. In the incident, Complainants’ two daughters, a son, an uncle and grandmother sustained serious burn injuries.  They were removed to the hospital for treatment. One of their daughters expired on the date of incident itself and their uncle and son succumbed to burn injuries on 06.03.2012 and 07.03.2012 respectively.

3.     Alleging that the gas cylinder manufactured by BPL and supplied by the Distributor was defective, resulting in loss of human lives, the Complainants in all these Revisions Petitions filed complaints before the District Forum, praying for award of damages from the Petitioners as also from the New India Assurance Company Ltd., which had issued a Multi Perils (LPG dealers) Package Policy in favour of the Distributor. As expected, the complaints were contested by the Petitioners as also by the Insurance Company on diverse grounds. BPL also raised the plea that the Complainants were not “Consumers” within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, therefore, the complaints were not maintainable.

4.     Upon consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the LPG cylinder supplied by the Distributor and manufactured by BPL was defective, which caused fire, resulting in the death of 17 years old daughter of the Complainants.  The District Forum also came to the conclusion that since the Distributor Peril Policy was in subsistence at the time of the incident, all the aforesaid opposite parties were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Complainants. The plea raised by the Manufacturer and Distributor that the compensation was payable only by the Insurance Company, was rejected. Accordingly, the District Forum directed the Petitioners as also the Insurance Company to pay an amount of ₹8,00,000/- each in Complaint case No. 195 to 198 of 2012 and ₹3,50,000/- in Complaint Case No. 199/12 to the Complainants as compensation for the damages with simple interest @ 6% p.a. from 12.06.2012 till realization. The District Forum also awarded a compensation of ₹1,00,000/- each in Complaint case No. 195 to 198 of 2012 and ₹50,000/- in Complaint Case No. 199/12 towards mental agony suffered by the Complainants.

5.     The orders of the District Forum were only challenged by the Insurance Company before the State Commission, mainly on the ground that supply of a defective cylinder did not fall within the purview of the Insurance Policy and therefore, they could not be made liable to share the compensation awarded by the District Forum.  To repeat, both the Petitioners herein, i.e. the Manufacturer and the Distributor did not challenge the orders of the District Forum, awarding compensation. To put it differently, the Insurance Company as well as the Petitioners accepted the findings of the District Forum to the effect that the LPG cylinder, in question, was defective.  As noted above the State Commission, allowing the Appeals, has exonerated the Insurance Company from any kind of liability in respect of compensation to the Complainants as awarded by the District Forum.  It is this order which is under challenge in these Revision Petitions by BPL and the Distributor.

6.     At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that in these Revision Petitions they are not impugning the finding of deficiency in service on their part as recorded in the orders passed by the District Forum. Their grievance is that the State Commission has exonerated the Insurance Company on mis-interpretation of the clauses in the Perils Insurance Policy, obtained by the Distributor.

7.     We are of the view that the findings of the District Forum relating to deficiency in service in supply of a defective LPG Cylinder having attained finality, the Complainants cannot be dragged into further litigation only on the question of sharing of liability for the awarded amount of compensation, amongst the parties. Having successfully proved their case before the Fora below, the Complainants cannot be made to wait for the release of amount of compensation, till the issue of sharing, sought to be raised in these petitions, is decided.  The Complainants are not concerned with inter-se dispute on the question of liability between the Manufacturer, Distribution and the Insurance Company. We are constrained to observe that in a case of this kind, where a number of valuable human lives have been lost, BPL, a big Public Sector Undertaking should not have been so insensitive to the agony and trauma undergone by the Complainants in deciding to contest the case upto this stage, and may be upto the Highest Court of the land because for them litigation cost is irrelevant.  We feel that by entertaining these Petitions to decide the stated larger issue, we shall be doing injustice to the Complainants, when on facts everything has been found to be in their favour.  We are of the opinion that the issue raised by the Petitioners can be best left to be adjudicated in other appropriate proceedings, after the full amount of compensation awarded by the lower fora has been paid to the Complainants by BPL, in the first instance. 

8.     Accordingly, we decline to exercise our Revisional Jurisdiction as we do not find any material jurisdictional error in the impugned orders in so far the award of compensation is concerned. Consequently, the Revision Petitions are dismissed in limine with liberty to the Petitioners to avail of any other legal remedy, as may be available to them for redressal of their grievances qua the Insurance Company, after the full amount of compensation is paid to the Complainants.  All the Revision Petitions stand dismissed. 

IA No. 4141/2014 to 4145/2014 & IA No. 4445/2014 to 4449/2014 (For stay)

 The main Revision Petitions having been dismissed, these interim applications are rendered infructuous and are dismissed accordingly.