SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)

                The Complainants have filed this complaint petition U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after called as the “Act”) alleging deficiency in service against the Opp. Parties claiming compensation.   

2.         The factual matrix of this case is that the father of the complainants namely Bansidhar Pramanik died on 30.5.2014 at Aswini Hospital, Cuttack suffering from burn injuries caused due to Gas tank blast on 13.5.2014. Their deceased father was a domestic consumer under the Ops vide Consumer No.3852. On 13.5.2014 at about 6.45 AM, while the mother of the complainants was using the gas for boiling water in a silver vessel for bathing, the gas cylinder burst and the deceased Bansidhar went inside the kitchen to save her and both got burn injuries, but the husband of the complainant was brought to District Headquarters Hospital, Balasore and then to Moon Hospital, Cuttack and then to Aswini Hospital, Cuttack where he succumbed to injuries on 30.5.2014. Their mother also got minor injury and got cured. Immediately Fire Fighter came to the spot and recorded the findings. On the death of deceased Banshidhar, Markatnagar PS UD Case No.646/2014 was registered. Thereafter, claim was also made before the Ops praying compensation to them. As no compensation was paid, they filed the present case on the ground of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops.

3.         In the present case, OP No.1 appeared and filed written version stating, inter alia, that the complainant is not a consumer under them nor this OP has relationship with the complainant. The complainant has also not agitated any specific allegation against this OP. That apart, the complainant has not stated a single word in the complaint about the deficiency in service committed by this OP. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the case.

4.         OP No.2 also appeared and filed written version wherein it is specifically stated that on 4.11.2015 they came to know about the occurrence from the spouse of the deceased when received a registered letter and they requested her to submit the required documents, but without submitting any documents, this case is filed. Further, on 7.11.2015, this OP conducted enquiry in the house and kitchen of the complainants and found no equipment there. Being suspected, they enquired about the incident from the neighbourers and came to know that due to refrigerator compressor gas tank explosion fire broke out and when the deceased entered into the kitchen sustained burn injuries. Therefore, commission of deficiency in service does not arise and prayed for dismissal of the case.

5.         OP No.3 appeared and filed written version stating, inter alia, that the cause of injury sustained by the deceased is suicide. The deceased has not been succumbed to injuries caused due to burst of gas tank, rather, it was caused due to burst of gas cylinder of a refrigerator. Further, the certificate issued by the Fire Station, Baliapal vide letter No.850 dated 3.11.2015 does not reveal that fire was broke out in the house of the deceased due to explosion of LPG cylinder. The certificate issued by the Fire Station, Basta vide letter No.534 dated 11.2.2014 does not reveal that cause of death of the deceased was due to explosion of LPG cylinder. There was no allegation about the leakage of gas from LPG cylinder or its regulator which was supplied to the deceased by the OP No.1 through OP No.2. This OP has emphatically challenged that the occurrence took place on 13.5.2014, but the spouse of the deceased intimated them on 6.11.2015. The complainants have filed this case suppressing the material facts with a view to grab the undue reward. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the case with cost.

6.         In view of the above averments of parties, the points for determination in this case are as follows:-

(i)         Whether the complainant has cause of action to file this case?

(ii)         Whether this consumer case is maintainable?

(iii)        Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

(iv)        Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief, as sought for?

(v)        To what other relief(s), the Complainant is entitled to? 

F  I  N  D  I  N  G  S

7.         On perusal of the case record, it is seen that this case was disposed of by this Commission on 20.6.2017. Being aggrieved with the order of dismissal, the complainant has preferred First Appeal No.419 of 2017 before the Hon’ble State CDR Commission. Upon hearing from both the parties, Hon’ble State CDR Commission have been pleased to set aside the impugned order and remanded back the matter with a direction to implead the Insurer as OP No.3 who is required to file written version and both the parties again should be given opportunity of being heard and to dispose of the case. In view of the order passed by the Hon’ble State CDR Commission, as in the meantime, the then complainant Smt. Bishnupriya Pramanik died, the present complainants, being the sons, have filed the present case. Hence, this order.   

8.         In order to substantiate their case, the complainants have filed catena of documents, whereas the Ops have not filed any documents in support of their stand. From the averments made in the pleadings of both the parties and documents produced on behalf of the complainants and OP No.2, it is clear that their deceased father was a consumer under OP No.1 & 2 being the domestic Indane cooking gas bearing Consumer No.3852 and he was insured against any damage of such domestic connection by the OP No.1 & 2, who had insured him under the OP No.3. Therefore, the complainants are covered under the definition of a consumer as defined under the provisions of the Act.    

9.         Before delve into the merits of the case, it is required to be decided how far the complainants are able to prove their case with regard to the cause of action and maintainability of the complaint. Learned counsel for the complainants submitted that on 13.5.2014 about 6.45 AM while the deceased mother of the complainants boiling water in a silver vessel for bating, there was loud sound and immediately the kitchen room gutted to fire and hearing her cry the deceased entered into the kitchen to save her spouse and surrounded by fire causing severe burn injuries. Besides that, their house so also the household articles were also turned to ashes. From the certificate issued by the Fire Station Authority of Basta and Baliapal, who were attended the fire on getting information, it cannot be disbelieved that the house of the deceased Bansidhar was gutted with fire. But it is specifically mentioned in the certificate issued by the Fire Station, Baliapal that there was an out broke of fire due to cause of gas tank explosion in respect of the house of the deceased. The death certificate and legal heir certificate issued by the competent authority has not been challenged by other parties. From the report submitted by Aswini Hospital, Cuttack, it is clearly made out that this was a case of thermal burn, basing upon which Markatnagar PS UD case was registered which itself disclosed that on enquiry from the concerned police station i.e. OIC, Singla PS and on examination of the witnesses it was found the death of deceased was due to accidental blasting of Indane LPG gas tank in his house at village Singla. The report of the OIC, Singla PS submitted to the IIC, Markatnagar PS reveals that the death of deceased was occurred due to accidental blasting of the Indane LPG gas tank in his dwelling house at village Singla and there is no reasonable doubt in it and the photocopy of the blasted gas tank which is still lying in front of house is attached with this report. From the autopsy report, the concerned doctor has clearly mentioned that the above burn injuries could have been caused due to dry heat in the form of flame and fire and the burnt surface area is about 95% of total body surface area. In the application submitted by the spouse of the deceased dated 2.11.2015, it is made out that she has intimated the OP No.2 about the alleged incident prior to it in several times, but as no step was taken, she had filed the written complaint before OP No.2. On receipt of the said letter dated 2.11.2015, OP No.2 called for certain documents from the spouse of the deceased vide letter dated 6.11.2015. The spouse of the deceased obtained the report of the R.I., who on inspection of the spot submitted his report to the Tahasildar, Basta wherein the concerned Revenue Inspector has mentioned that the house was burnt due to damage of gas cylinder in the morning, the kitchen materials are burnt and the house so also the utensils were also burnt. Lastly, it is submitted that the deceased was died due to burst of the LPG cylinder and the house so also household articles were also burnt to ashes.   

10.        On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops have taken their stand that the cause of death of the deceased was not due to the burst of the LPG cylinder, rather, it was happened due to the burst of the gas cylinder of the refrigerator. It is further submitted that on 7.11.2015, OP No.2 made a physical verification of the house of the deceased and found no equipment at the kitchen or in the house and the family members of the complainants including the spouse of the deceased stated that all the equipment provided by OP No.2 was burnt to ashes. Therefore, on suspicion, OP No.2 collected information from the nearby villagers who disclosed that due to explosion of refrigerator compressor gas tank the fire broke out and at that moment the deceased was in the field and getting information about the fire he rushed and entered into the kitchen and sustained burn injuries.

11.        Not a single document is placed on behalf of the Ops to prove that he had examined the family members of the complainants including the spouse of the deceased nor the statement of the nearby villagers who have stated about the incident that the fire broke out due to explosion of gas tank of the refrigerator compressor and at that time the deceased was in his field and on getting information he rushed and entered into the kitchen and sustained burn injuries. On the other hand, on perusal of the documents submitted on behalf of the complainants, it is crystal clear that the deceased had sustained burn injuries coming in contact with fire and while on treatment succumbed to injuries. But taking into account the submissions as advanced on behalf of the Ops, it is to be threshed out as to whether the fire was actually broke out due to explosion of LPG cylinder or the gas compressor of the refrigerator.  

12.        In this connection, on perusal of the physical verification report made by OP No.2, it is found that type of hotplate, hose type, regulator, regulator number, cylinder were not available. The place of installation of gas cylinder was in the kitchen and there was power supply in the kitchen. The reason for non-availability of the hotplate, hose type, regulator, regulator number and cylinder was not mentioned in the verification report. In the verification report, it has also not been mentioned that fire was broke out due to sort circuit of the electricity. Further, the OP No.2 has not made any inventory as to the existence of any refrigerator in the house of the complainants on the date of verification nor stated anything in their verification report that the cause of explosion was due to burst of the compressor of the refrigerator. The verification report further reveals that OP No.2 has taken the signature of complainant No.2 namely Gopal Krushna Pramanik, who supposed to be a minor on the date of verification. That apart, as it is seen, the occurrence took place on 13.5.2014 and the OP No.2 made physical verification to the spot on 7.11.2015 i.e. after more than 17 months. In the above premises, non-availability of the gas accessories in the kitchen of the deceased is presumed to be correct. Because, after the incident, the deceased was shifted to DHH, Balasore and then to Moon  Hospital, Cuttack and then to Aswini Hospital, Cuttack for treatment where he died on 30.5.2014. There are some rituals in the Hindu family in case of death of a family member and for that purpose the house of the deceased might have cleaned up. Had the OP No.2 been verified the spot within a short span of time, then the true state of affair would have been unearthed. But the OP No.2 has not done so even after gathering of information about the incident. At this juncture, the stand of the OP No.2 cannot be believed as to the fact that they came to know about the incident on 4.11.2015 as because the spouse of the deceased had mentioned in her application dated 2.11.2015 in Para-8 that she had intimated about the incident in the office of OP No.2 time and again for taking necessary action and OP No.2 had assured her for remedy, but as no action was taken by OP No.2, she had submitted the above written complaint praying to look after the matter within 15 days otherwise she would be constrained to take shelter in the Law. Further, in the above scenario, it is out of place to mention here that till 4.11.2015, the OP No.3-Insurance Company has no knowledge about the incident, as admitted by him in his written version and he for the first time came to know about the incident on 6.11.2015. It is a fact that the complainant (deceased mother of the complainants) has filed the case on 17.12.2015 only against the Indian Oil Corporation and its authorized dealer. The spouse of the deceased was a rustic villager and pardanashin lady and perhaps she had no knowledge how to get compensation and from whom. Now-a-days also 90% citizen in the country do not have any knowledge about the insurance package in case of mishap out come from the burst of LPG cylinder. Thus, how can a rustic pardanashin lady of a remove village able to know about the insurance policy with the OP No.3. In this regard, neither the Central/ State Government nor the Indian Oil Company/ Authorized LPG cylinder distributors have taken any initiative to aware the common people about availability of the insurance policy against each Gas connections and in case of any mishap, the consumer can avail the benefit under the Insurance Policy. No awareness has been made by any of the Government or the Oil Companies or the Insurance Companies. Therefore, in the above essence, the spouse of the deceased has not made OP No.3 as party in the present case and it was not intentional or deliberate in nature, rather, as per directive of the Hon’ble State Commission, the present complainants, after the demise of their mother, have made the OP No.3 as party in this case. Further, as it is seen from the version, OP No.3 has tried his best to stand on the leg of the other co-opposite parties. In the aforesaid backdrop, the delay, as agitated by the Ops, is not sustainable in the eye of law.

13.        Further, OP No.3 has agitated that there was no allegation made by the deceased about the leakage of gas from the LPG cylinder from the date of last installation till the date of alleged incident and unless there is leakage of gas from the tank, there is no chance of blasting of LPG cylinder. It is further submitted that the deceased Bansidhar Pramanik had sustained thermal burn on the date of accident and thermal burns skin injuries caused by excessive heat, typically from contact with hot surface, hot liquids, stem or flame and the burn injuries sustained by the deceased may be caused due to explosion of refrigerator gas cylinder. In respect of the above submissions, it is reiterated to mention here that this Commission has already vividly discussed about the availability/ non-availability of the LPG cylinder/ refrigerator and further, leakage of the gas from any gas container cannot foresee that it would leak and so leakage of gas is an accidental process and not a continuous process. So far as the first limb of submission, it is seen from the photocopy of the autopsy report where the concerned autopsy doctor has opined that the burn injuries are antemortem in nature and could have been due to dry heat in the form of flame and fire. It cannot be said that the fire broke out from the LPG is not dry heat in the form of flame. On the other hand, the report of the Fire Stations so also the report of the OIC, Singla PS clearly unearthed that the incident took place due to accidental blasting of the Indane LPG gas tank in the dwelling house of the deceased and the photocopy of the blasted gas tank which was lying in front of the house of the deceased was submitted along with the report to the IIC, Markatnagar PS.

14.        From the above discussions, this Commission is of the considered view that the death of the deceased Bansidhar Pramanik was caused due to sustaining of burn injuries coming in contact with the dry heat in the form of flame for blasting of LPG cylinder in the house of the complainants. Therefore, the OP No.3 is liable to pay the compensation. As stated by the complainants that after the marriage their only sister is now settled in Bangalore with her husband and she denied to receive any compensation and to that effect their sister had executed one affidavit before the Notary Public, Balasore. On perusal of the affidavit sworn by Smt. Sibani Pramanik, D/o Late Bishnupriya Pramanik and Late Bansidhar Pramanik, W/o Abhijit Chandra Kar dated 8.8.2023 before the Notary Public, Balasore, it is found that she had given her consent to her younger brothers (the complainants) to proceed with the case at their own capacity not impleading her as a party and declared that any award/ compensation is granted in favour of her younger brothers, she has no objection/ claim against them. Therefore, it is held that the complainants are entitled to the reliefs what-so-ever in this case. Consequently, the complainant has cause of action to file the case and the case is maintainable.

15.        Next coming to the quantum of compensation. On perusal of the documents, it is found that OP No.2 has taken initiative on receipt of the application, may be at a belated stage, from the spouse of the deceased and issued letter in her favour for production of relevant documents. Thus, it can’t be said that OP No.2 has committed deficiency in service and thus he is not liable for the compensation. Further, on perusal of the Fire Station report, it is found that the cost of the loss of property in the house of the complainants was Rs.1,50,000/-. Further, it is stated by the complainants that a sum of Rs.8,83,270/- was spent for the medical treatment of their deceased father Bansidhar Pramanik. In total, the complainants have claimed Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation. On the other hand, OP No.3 has emphatically submitted that the maximum amount payable by the company as compensation including litigation expenses in respect of any one claim or series of claims from one accident event shall not exceed Rs.10,00,000/-. Taking into consideration the above submission raised by the OP No.3, the loss of property indicated by the Fire Station Authority and the series of medical bills issued by different hospital authorities, Red Cross and medicine stores, this Commission is of the opinion that an award of Rs.10,00,000/- in favour of the complainants would meet the ends of justice and it would not be a burden on the OP No.1 & 3. But, as the complainants have not produced relevant documents before either of the Ops, it cannot be said that the Ops are deficient in rendering their service towards the complainants.

            Hence, it is ordered: -

O   R   D   E   R

            The complaint of the complainants be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps No.1 & 3 and dismissed against O.P No.2. The O.Ps No.1 & 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- towards loss of assets, house, medical expenses including litigation cost within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainants are entitled to get interest @ 9% on the compensation amount from the date of actual cause of action till its realization and in case of failure, the complainants are at liberty to realize the same from the O.Ps No.1 & 3 through the process of law.

            Pronounced in the open court of this Commission on this day i.e. the 25^th day of November, 2024 given under my signature & seal of the commission.