Haryana
StateCommission
A/180/2015
SAFIDON GAS SERVICE - Complainant(s)
Versus
BHIM SAIN ALIAS BHIM SINGH AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)
JAIMINI TIWARI
27 May 2015
ORDER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
First Appeal No : 180 of 2015
Date of Institution: 11.02.2015
Date of Decision : 27.05.2015
(1)
Safidon Gas Service, Bal Bhavan Shopping Complex, Safidon, District Jind (Haryana) through its Proprietor/Partner.
Appellant-Opposite Party No.1
Versus
1. Bhim Sain @ Bhim Singh s/o Sh. Chunni Lal, Resident of Ward No.2, Holi Mohalla, Safidon, District Jind.
Respondent-Complainant
2. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (M.D.), Indane Area Office, Kohand, Assandh Road, Village Gudha, District Karnal (Haryana) through its Incharge/Area Manager.
3. National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Jind through its Branch Manager.
Respondents-Opposite Parties No.2 & 3
(2)
Appeal No : 191 of 2015
Date of Institution: 02.03.2015
Date of Decision : 27.05.2015
M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited (M.D.), Indane Area Office, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (M.D.), Indane Area Office, Kohand, Assandh Road, Village Gudha, District Karnal (Haryana) through its constituted attorney and Law Officer Shri Akashdeep.
Appellant-Opposite Party No.2
Versus
1. Bhim Sain @ Bhim Singh s/o Sh. Chunni Lal, Resident of Ward No.2, Holi Mohalla, Safidon, District Jind.
Respondent-Complainant
2. Safidon Gas Service, Bal Bhavan Shopping Complex, Safidon, District Jind (Haryana) through its Proprietor/Partner.
3. National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Jind through its Branch Manager.
Respondents-Opposite Parties No.1 & 3
(3)
Appeal No : 192 of 2015
Date of Institution: 02.03.2015
Date of Decision : 27.05.2015
M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited (M.D.), Indane Area Office, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (M.D.), Indane Area Office, Kohand, Assandh Road, Village Gudha, District Karnal (Haryana) through its constituted attorney and Law Officer Shri Akashdeep.
Appellant-Opposite Party No.2
Versus
1. Vinod Kumar s/o Sh. Bhim Sain @ Bhim Singh, Resident of Ward No.2, Holi Mohalla, Safidon, District Jind.
Respondent-Complainant
2. Safidon Gas Service, Bal Bhavan Shopping Complex, Safidon, District Jind (Haryana) through its Proprietor/Partner.
3. National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Jind through its Branch Manager.
Respondents-Opposite Parties No.1 & 3
(4)
Appeal No : 193 of 2015
Date of Institution: 02.03.2015
Date of Decision : 27.05.2015
M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited (M.D.), Indane Area Office, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (M.D.), Indane Area Office, Kohand, Assandh Road, Village Gudha, District Karnal (Haryana) through its constituted attorney and Law Officer Shri Akashdeep.
Appellant-Opposite Party No.2
Versus
1. Miss Anjali minor daughter of Vinod Kumar s/o Sh. Bhim Sain @ Bhim Singh, Resident of Ward No.2, Holi Mohalla, Safidon, District Jind through her next friend/her father Shri Vinod Kumar s/o Sh. Bhim Sain @ Bhim Singh, natural guardian of the minor.
Respondent-Complainant
2. Safidon Gas Service, Bal Bhavan Shopping Complex, Safidon, District Jind (Haryana) through its Proprietor/Partner.
3. National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Jind through its Branch Manager.
Respondents-Opposite Parties No.1 & 3
(5)
Appeal No : 213 of 2015
Date of Institution: 05.03.2015
Date of Decision : 27.05.2015
National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Jind through its Branch Manager
Now represented through the authorized signatory of Regional Office-II, SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.
Appellant-Opposite Party No.3
Versus
1. Sh. Bhim Sain @ Bhim Singh s/o Sh. Chunni Lal, Resident of Ward No.2, Holi Mohalla, Safidon, District Jind.
Respondent-Complainant
2. Safidon Gas Service, Bal Bhavan Shopping Complex, Safidon, District Jind (Haryana) through its Proprietor/Partner.
3. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited (M.D.), Indane Area Office, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (M.D.), Indane Area Office, Kohand, Assandh Road, Village Gudha, District Karnal (Haryana) through its Incharge/Area Manager.
Respondents-Opposite Parties No.1 & 2
(6)
First Appeal No : 259 of 2015
Date of Institution: 18.03.2015
Date of Decision : 27.05.2015
Vinod Kumar s/o Sh. Bhim Sain @ Bhim Singh, Resident of Ward No.2, Holi Mohalla, Safidon, District Jind
Appellant-Complainant
Versus
1. Safidon Gas Service, Shop No.11-12, Bal Bhavan Shopping Complex, Safidon, District Jind (Haryana) through its Proprietor/Partner.
2. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (M.D.), Indane Area Office, Kohand, Assandh Road, Village Gudha, District Karnal (Haryana) through its Incharge/Area Manager.
3. National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Jind through its Branch Manager, Office at SCO 1-2, near Rani Talab, Jind, District Jind.
Respondents-Opposite Parties
(7)
First Appeal No : 260 of 2015
Date of Institution: 18.03.2015
Date of Decision : 27.05.2015
Miss Anjali daughter of Vinod Kumar, Resident of Ward No.2, Holi Mohalla, Safidon, District Jind
Appellant-Complainant
Versus
1. Safidon Gas Service, Shop No.11-12, Bal Bhavan Shopping Complex, Safidon, District Jind (Haryana) through its Proprietor/Partner.
2. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (M.D.), Indane Area Office, Kohand, Assandh Road, Village Gudha, District Karnal (Haryana) through its Incharge/Area Manager.
3. National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Jind through its Branch Manager, Office at SCO 1-2, near Rani Talab, Jind, District Jind.
Respondents-Opposite Parties
(8)
First Appeal No : 261 of 2015
Date of Institution: 18.03.2015
Date of Decision : 27.05.2015
Bhim Sain @ Bhim Singh s/o Sh. Chunni Lal, Resident of Ward No.2, Holi Mohalla, Safidon, District Jind
Appellant-Complainant
Versus
1. Safidon Gas Service, Shop No.11-12, Bal Bhavan Shopping Complex, Safidon, District Jind (Haryana) through its Proprietor/Partner.
2. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (M.D.), Indane Area Office, Kohand, Assandh Road, Village Gudha, District Karnal (Haryana) through its Incharge/Area Manager.
3. National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Jind through its Branch Manager, Office at SCO 1-2, near Rani Talab, Jind, District Jind.
Respondents-Opposite Parties
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.
Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.
Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member
Present: Shri Sandeep Lathar, Advocate for Bhim Sain, Vinod Kumar and Anjali-complainants.
Shri Varun Chawla, Advocate for Safidon Gas Service
Shri Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
Shri Nitin Gupta, Advocate for National Insurance Company Limited.
O R D E R
NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)
In these eight appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), orders dated January 16th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Jind, are under challenge. By the impugned orders, the District Forum has allowed complaints No.214,215 and 216 of 2011 filed by Bhim Sain @ Bhim Singh, Vinod Kumar and Miss Anjali-complainants respectively, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Appeals No.180, 191, 192, 193 and 213 of 2015 have been filed by Safidon Gas Service (hereinafter referred to as ‘Distributor’), Indian Oil Corporation Limited and National Insurance Company Limited (for short Insurance Company) for setting aside the impugned orders whereas appeals No.259, 260 and 261 of 2015 have been filed by Bhim Sain, Vinod Kumar and Miss Anjali, complainants seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. These appeals are being disposed of by this common order because the question of facts and law involved is identical.
4. Succinctly put, the case of the complainants, as highlighted in Appeal No.260/2015 (Anjali’s case), treated as the lead case, is that on September 19th, 2009 at about 10.45 A.M. Vinod Kumar (complainant in complaint No.215/2011) was replacing the exhausted LPG gas cylinder with a new LPG cylinder in his kitchen, which was supplied to him by Safidon Gas Service. On opening the new refill, the gas cylinder started leaking due to manufacturing defect in the gas cylinder. As a result thereof, gas spread in the house of his father Bhim Sain. Vinod Kumar immediately brought the cylinder in the open street outside the house, where some neighbours also gathered. The leakage of LPG resulted into a blast. Kamlesh @ Chanchal was killed and four others namely Vinod Kumar, his daughter Anjali (complainants) and Rohit Kumar were injured. The house of Bhim Sain-complainant was also damaged.
5. In their complaints, Bhim Sain sought compensation of Rs.8.00 lacs on account of damage to his house; Vinod Kumar and Anjali claimed compensation of Rs.2.00 lacs and Rs.5.00 lacs respectively due to the injuries suffered by them in the alleged gas cylinder blast. All of them also claimed interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of compensation.
6. Distributor filed reply averring that gas cylinder was supplied to Bhim Sain and the gas cylinder bursted due to the negligence of Vinod Kumar while replacing the same.
7. Indian Oil Corporation denied its liability on the ground that there was an agreement executed between it and Safidon Gas Service-Distributor, which was to act as Principal not an agent.
8. Insurance Company pleaded that its liability was limited qua the damage of the property, that is, upto Rs.90,000/- and for the injuries sustained, the liability was only upto Rs.1.00 lac.
9. The District Forum vide impugned orders dated January 16th, 2015 awarded compensation of Rs.2,19,142/-, Rs.78,544/- and Rs.86,146/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, that is, May 19th, 2011 till its realization to Bhim Sain, Vinod Kumar and Anjali respectively to be paid jointly and severally by the opposite parties.
10. On behalf of the complainants, it has been urged that amount of compensation awarded was not adequate and it requires enhancement.
11. Learned counsel representing the Distributor contended that there was no fault on the part of Gas Service because the burst occurred on account of manufacturing defect for which Gas Service could not be held responsible.
12. On behalf of Indian Oil Corporation, it was strenuously urged that it was not liable to pay the compensation awarded. If at all, the compensation was to be paid, it was the liability of Safidon Gas Service because as per Clause 17 of the Agreement (Exhibit OP-19) Safidon Gas Service was to act as Principal and not an Agent of Indian Oil Corporation. Reference was also made to the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Indian Oil Corporation versus Consumer Protection Council Kerala, 1994(2) C.P.J. (SC) 21 and First Appeal No.527 of 2006, Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs. Shri Hansmukhbhai M. Patel and others, decided on August 13th, 2012, by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.
13. Sh. Nitin Gupta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has urged that amount of compensation awarded to Vinod Kumar and Anjali, that is, Rs.78544/- and Rs.86146/- has already been paid by the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company is ready to pay Rs.90,000/- to Bhim Sain, that is the liability of the Insurance Company as per the Insurance Policy.
14. Evidence on record, material circumstances of the complaints and the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties have been appraised.
15. Case of Bhim Sain:
Bhim Sain in his complaint and affidavit Exhibit C-1 submitted that due to break out of fire, his house was badly damaged. He claimed Rs.8.00 lacs as compensation. The loss was got assessed by him from Anil Kalra, Chartered Engineer, who submitted his report (Exhibit C-43). The loss assessed by him was Rs.3,83,800/-. In rebuttal thereto, Insurance Company appointed surveyor Sh R.K. Jain who, per his report (Exhibit C-59), found that loss occurred was of Rs.2,19,142/-.
16. The report submitted by Anil Kalra is not trustworthy in comparison to the report submitted by R.K. Jain. The manner in which the report was prepared by Anil Kalra, shows that it was on higher side without applying the basic principles. For example while describing the property, that is, house of the complainant it was mentioned “1st Class B.B. Work in Cement Mortar 1:6, quantity 681.18 cubic meter, H.S.R 1988: 414.45 per cubic meter, amount: 28,257-20 and the premia raised on the said amount was mentioned 400% and then the amount was quantified at Rs.1,13,028.80. In all, ten items were mentioned in the same manner. In some of the items, premia was calculated 250%, 340% and so on, on the amount calculated. In view of this, the report of Anil Kalra is hereby rejected. The report of R.K. Jain appears to be correct and no contrary evidence thereto has been led by opposite parties No.1 & 2. R.K. Jain in his report assessed the loss at Rs.2,19,142/- which the District Forum has awarded. So, this Commission uphold the finding of the District Forum so far as awarding the compensation of Rs.2,19,142/- to Bhim Sain on account of damage to his house due to the bursting of the LPG cylinder.
17. Case of Vinod Kumar:
Vinod Kumar, aged 45 years suffered burn injuries in the occurrence. He was treated at Government Hospital, Safidon vide certificate Exhibit C-8 and Lala Harbhagwan Dass Memorial and Doctor Prem Hospital, Panipat per medical record/bills Exhibits C-9 to C-122. Sh. R.K. Jain, Surveyor on the basis of the medical bills (Exhibits C-25 and C-26) calculated the expenses incurred by Vinod Kumar on his treatment at Rs.78,544/- (Rs.46,700/- + Rs.31,844/-) which the District Forum has awarded. He remained admitted in the hospital from September 19th, 2009 to October 09th, 2009 and during that period, he was unable to do his routine work and also suffered mental as well as physical pain. The injured must have been under constant agony for a long period. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the injuries suffered by him, in considered opinion of this Commission, Vinod Kumar-complainant is also entitled to Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering besides Rs.78,544/-, awarded by the District Forum, that is, in all Rs.78,544/- + Rs.50,000/- = Rs.1,28,544/-. It is ordered accordingly.
18. Case of Anjali:
Anjali-complainant aged 12 years suffered deep thermal burn injuries to the extent 15% as is evident from Out-patient Reference Card Exhibit C-9. Five surgeries were conducted on her body on different dates. For the first time, she was operated on October 29th, 2009 (Exhibit C-10) for skin grafting in Lala Har Bhagwan Dass Memorial & Dr. Prem Hospital, Panipat. She was discharged on November 5th, 2009.
19. Thereafter, her surgical operations were conducted on different dates in Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi, the details of which are given as under:-
i) On August 9th, 2010 she was admitted and was operated upon on August 10th, 2010 (Exhibit C-22) for right elbow and wrist contracture. She was discharged on August 16th, 2010.
ii) On December 30th, 2010, she was admitted complaining of PBC both elbows and hands law c area (Lt Upper limb). Operation was conducted on December 31st, 2010 and elbow contracture release was done (Exhibit C-55).
iii) The patient was complaining of PBC b/L hands. She was admitted on July 4th, 2011 for release of post burn syndactyly 2nd and 3rd webs pares c lateral finger flap c release contracture ® little finger & ulnar aspect ® wrist c z- plesty & K-wire fixation of 2nd, 3rd & 4th MCP jt done, under JA on 5.7.2011. She was discharged on July 11th, 2011 (Annexure A).
iv) On December 19th, 2011 she suffered PBC both hands & facial scar left. Her surgical operation was conducted on December 23rd, 2011 for left hand all four web space deepening c SSC and local flaps c left facial scar revision. She was discharged on December 26th, 2011. She was advised for plastic surgery, massage, exercise and finger stretching (Annexure B).
20. From the evidence mentioned above, it is established that Anjali suffered 15% burn injuries. She underwent five surgeries. Her photographs (Annexure A-8) show the location of injuries on her body. The burn injuries would affect her future prospects in the life to come. She was young girl aged 12 years and thus has lost considerably her matrimonial prospects to her expectations. She suffered from physical as well as mental pain ever since the incident and got treatment from time to time. It may be legitimate to adopt a different approach to the claim on the count of adverse effect of the burn injuries on the prospects of her marriage. Burns disfigure the person and the personality. Having regard to the nature of burn injuries on the face of complainant and other vital parts of her body, she must, therefore, be suitably compensated. The District Forum has only awarded the amount spent by her on her treatment, that is, Rs.86,146/-. Even besides bills, there are several other expenses for which no details can be preserved. The District Forum has not taken into consideration the pain and sufferings which Anjali had undergone for facing five surgeries on her person including a long period of hospitalization. She has to suffer the brunt of the tragedy throughout her life. Considering her age, that is, 12 years, at the time of incident and the nature of injuries referred to above, in the opinion of this Commission, it would be just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5.00 lacs in lump sum including the expenses incurred by her on her treatment, that is, Rs.86,146/-. It is ordered accordingly.
21. Coming now to the question as to who is to be held liable to pay the amount of compensation awarded to Bhim Sain, Vinod Kumar and Anjali.
22. As stated earlier, District Forum directed Safidon Gas Service-Distributor, Indian Oil Corporation and National Insurance Company-Insurer to pay the amount of compensation jointly and severally.
23. It was urged on behalf of the Safidon Gas Service that it had only supplied the gas cylinder to Bhim Sain and leakage of the cylinder was not due to any lapse on their part. It was a manufacturing defect for which Indian Oil Corporation was held to be liable.
24. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the Indian Oil Corporation has urged that as per Clause 17 of the Agreement Exhibit OP-19, the Distributor was to act as Principal and not as an Agent of the Corporation in any manner. So, the Indian Oil Corporation was not liable to pay the compensation to the complainants. He has also relied upon the authorities Consumer Protection Council Kerala (supra) and Shri Hansmukhbhai M. Patel and others (supra).
25. For ready reference, clause 17 of the Agreement is reproduced as under:-
"In all contracts or engagements entered into by the Distributor with the customers for sale of LPG and/or the sale and/or installation and/or repairs of appliances and/or connections thereof with LPG cylinders (filled or empty) and/or refills and/or pressure regulators and/or attached equipment the Distributor shall act and shall always be deemed to have acted as a principal and not as an agent or on account of the Corporation, and the Corporation shall not in any way be liable in any manner in respect of such contracts and/or engagements and/or in respect of any act or omission on the part of the Distributor, his servants, agents and workmen in regard to such installation, sale, distribution, connections, repairs or otherwise. The Distributor shall be bound to inform the customers in writing of this provision, through correspondence or at the time of enrollment, of the customer."
26. In Consumer Protection Council, Kerala’s case (supra), complainant had taken LPG connection through one M/s Karthika Gas Agency, who was the authorized Distributor of the Indian Oil Corporation. Karthika Gas Agency committed several irregularities in giving gas connection and in providing refills of LPG cylinders to the complainant. The gas agency had given more connections than authorized by the Indian Oil Corporation. Since there were irregularities committed by Karthika Gas Agency, the Indian Oil Corporation suspended the agency which lateron was revived. Karthika Gas Agency gave a new registration for the connection and started the regular supply of gas cylinder to the complainant. After two years of the registration, the complainant requested the gas agency for regularization of his gas connection. The Indian Oil Corporation refused the same. The complainant pleaded that this would amount to deficiency in service on the part of Indian Oil Corporation. On these allegations, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum claiming regularization of the gas connection and the compensation. The District Forum accepted the complaint and directed the Indian Oil Corporation to regularize the connection given by gas agency.
27. Against the said order, appeal was filed by the Indian Oil Corporation before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala. The same was also dismissed by the State Commission.
28. The revision filed by Indian Oil Corporation before the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi was also dismissed. The Indian Oil Corporation filed appeal by Special Leave before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
29. Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Foras below and civil appeal filed by Indian Oil Corporation was allowed holding that the possession of LPG gas cylinder by the complainant could not be proved to be authorized. Therefore on the strength of obtaining possession by means of unauthorized connection, it was not open to the complainant to foist a contract on the Indian Oil Corporation. It was further held that since there was no privity of contract between the Indian Oil Corporation and the complainant, question of “deficiency” as defined under Section 2(g) of the Consumer Protection Act did not arise.
30. In Shri Hansmukhbhai M. Patel and others’ case (supra), complainant, while igniting the gas stove, a fire took place as a result of which complainant and her husband got burn injuries. The husband of the complainant died after two days of the occurrence and the complainant remained in hospital for about 30-40 days for her treatment. It was urged by the complainant that fire took place due to supply of defective gas cylinder. She filed complaint under the Act before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Indian Oil Corporation-manufacturer to pay Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant jointly and severally. In that case, Indian Oil Corporation’s plea was that gas cylinder was not defective. It was containing 10 KG of gas after the accident which itself proved that there was no defect in the gas cylinder; the cylinder was in use for the last ten days of the occurrence; the gas cylinder was checked by the Indian Oil Corporation officials after the accident and it was found in working condition. It was further pleaded that accident took place due to use of substandard non I.S.I rubber tube. Under these circumstances, it was pleaded by the Indian Oil Corporation that as per the terms of the Distributorship Agreement, relationship between Indian Oil Corporation and the Distributor/Dealer, was on principal to principal basis and not principal to agent basis. Therefore, Indian Oil Corporation was not liable to pay the amount of compensation awarded to the complainants. Hon’ble National Commission after referring to clause 17 of the Agreement, which has been extracted above, held that the relationship between the Indian Oil Corporation and the Distributor was on principal to principal basis. There was no privity of contract between the Indian Oil Corporation and the consumer and therefore, the complaint filed by the consumer against Indian Oil Corporation was not maintainable.
31. The authorities referred to above are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
32. In the case in hand, the gas cylinder bursted while being replaced resulting into death of a woman and injuries to three persons besides damage to the house. The blast was due to nothing but as a result of manufacturing defect in the gas cylinder. The manufacturer was nobody else but the Indian Oil Corporation. So, on the basis of the clause 17 of the agreement referred to above, the Indian Oil Corporation cannot be allowed to escape from its liability to compensate the consumer. In a recent judgment Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs. Ramesh Thakur and others, I (2015), CPJ, 451 (NC), complainant was the consumer of gas cylinder through M/s Vineet Gas Agency. The gas agency used to supply the gas cylinders, which were to be filled up by Indian Oil Corporation. The complainant was supplied a gas cylinder on December 24th, 2008. On January 21st, 2009, his wife changed the aforesaid cylinder with the old one because the gas in the old cylinder had run out. When she tried to ignite the stove, the pipe caught fire, leading to bursting of cylinder. The wife of complainant sustained injuries, kitchen and all the adjoining rooms were badly damaged. The complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Appeal preferred by the Indian Oil Corporation was dismissed by the State Commission.
33. Indian Oil Corporation challenged the orders of the District Forum and State Commission before the National Commission, New Delhi pleading that the relationship between the Indian Oil Corporation and the Gas Agency were on principal to principal basis and not principal to agent basis referring to clause 17 of the agreement mentioned above and as such, it was not liable to pay the compensation.
34. The National Commission after referring to the judgments Consumer Protection Council Kerala (supra) and Shri Hansmukhbhai M. Patel and others (supra) relied upon by the Indian Oil Corporation held that accident took place because of the cylinder being old and worn out and supply of LPG in such kind of cylinder cannot be said to be an act of negligence or omission on the part of the Distributor but constitutes negligence on the part of the Indian Oil Corporation.
35. For the reasons aforesaid, it is unhesitatingly held that the accident took place due to the manufacturing defect of the gas cylinder for which the Indian Oil Corporation, who was the manufacturer is liable to pay the compensation.
36. In view of what has been stated above, the Insurance Company shall pay Rs.90,000/- out of Rs.2,19,142/- to Bhim Sain; Rs.1,00,000/- out of Rs.1,28,544/- to Vinod Kumar and Rs.1,00,000/- out of Rs.5,00,000/- to Anjali because liability of the Insurance Company was limited only to that extent. The remaining amount, that is, Rs.1,29,142/- (2,19,142 - 90,000), Rs.28,544/- (1,28,544 – 1,00,000) and Rs.4,00,000/- (5,00,000 – 1,00,000) shall be paid by the Indian Oil Corporation to Bhim Sain, Vinod Kumar and Anjali respectively. The interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the awarded amount shall be paid from the date of filing of the complaints till its actual realization accordingly by the Insurance Company and the Indian Oil Corporation.
37. In view of above, the impugned orders are modified in the manner indicated above and the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
38. The statutory amounts of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing appeals No.180,191,192,193 and 213 of 2015 (each), be refunded to the complainants, against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.
Announced 27.05.2015 | Diwan Singh Chauhan Member | B.M. Bedi Judicial Member | Nawab Singh President |
CL/UK
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.