IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KOLLAM

Dated this the     25^th Day of  October  2022

    Present: -          Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LL.M. President

                             Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

                                                    CC.19/17

Johnson@Jayan                                 :         Complainant

S/o  Samuel

Pinki Bhavan, Chengamanad P.O

Kottarakkara Taluk.

[By Adv.B.Venugopal]

V/s

1. General Manager                      :         Opposite parties

         Indane Gas Service

          H.O Hari Nagar

         New Delhi.

        [By Adv.George Mathews&Adv.S.Riyas]

2. The Proprietor

         Kaveri Indane Services

          Kunnicodu P.O

          Kottarakkara

          [By Adv.S.Riyas]

Additional Opposite parties

3. The Manager

        Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

         Punalur.

4. The Manager

          M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd.

          Divisional Office

          No-17 226, Canada Building

           1^st Floor,Dr.D.N.Road

          Fort Mumbai.

          [By Adv.S.Dileep Kumar]

FINAL    ORDER

E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , B.A, LL.M, President

1.     This is a case based on a complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.      The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

          The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer and supplier of cooking gas in the name and style Indane.  The 2^nd opposite party is the agent and distributor appointed by the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant is the consumer being the customer of the opposite parties.  The consumer number is 7933.  The complainant obtained  gas cylinder as per subscription voucher No.574999.  The said gas cylinder used to be delivered to the complainant by 2^nd opposite party Kaveri Indane Services, Kunnicode.  On 03.04.2015 the 2^nd opposite party’s staff came to the house of the complainant with the gas cylinder and installed the gas cylinder after taking the empty gas cylinder.  As and when the complainant’s wife switched on the stove on 05.04.2015 she saw fire in the regulator and due to the timely action of the complainant, the fire did not spread to more spaces of the building and saved the life of his wife and other family members.  Due to that mishap, serious burn injuries sustained to the complainant.  The fire was extinguished by the police and fire force.  Immediately the complainant was taken to Medical College hospital, Thiruvananthapuram.  He suffered more than 45% burn,  It is the duty of the opposite parties to assure the quality of the cylinder and its regulator and to ascertain the proper installation of the regulator of the cylinder.  Since the cooking gas is highly inflammable and hazardous to life and safety, the opposite parties ought to have taken utmost care and ought to have made sure that, the filled gas cylinder supplied to the complainant was one which is free from leakage and was in a good condition to be used in the kitchen.  But the opposite parties have willfully committed breach of duty and supplied dangerous and useless filled cylinder which is subject to leakage with the full knowledge that, if the cylinder is subject to leakage it would cause explosion and fire.  The fire occurred due to the negligence of the opposite party in respect of ascertaining the quality of the cylinder, regulator and the installation of regulator. It is the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  As a result of the said fire and explosion the complainant had sustained more than 45% burn and he could not continue his profession as driver and he had to spend much money for treatment and the treatment is still continuing.  During the period of treatment he was depending others for his daily avocations.  Hence the complainant is claiming Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties.  In addition to that complainant is also entitled to get a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  On 10.07.2015 the complainant had issued legal notice to the opposite parties demanding the said amount.  Eventhough the complainant had received the notices, they did not turn up so far.  Hence the complaint.

3.     Opposite parties No.1&2 and additional opposite party no.3&4 entered appearance in response to the notice and filed separate version resisting the allegations leveled against them in the complaint.  The main contentions of the opposite party No.1&2 are more or less same which in short are as follows.  The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  Opposite parties No.1&2 have been  unnecessarily made parties in the complaint and there is no cause of action against them.  However both the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party would admit that the complainant is their customer.  The 2^nd opposite party would further admit that they had delivered a new gas cylinder to the complainant on 03.04.2015.  At the time of the delivery of the said cylinder, the delivery boy had ascertained that there was no defect or leakage in the cylinder delivered and the complainant was also satisfied with the said cylinder when tested.  The opposite party No.1&2 are not at  all aware of the alleged incident.  The complainant also did not contact both opposite parties at any time immediately after the incident.  As per the complaint a legal notice was sent to the office of the opposite party and the said office is not functioning.  As soon as the  2^nd opposite party came to know about the accident, the office staff of the 2^nd opposite party reached the complainant’s residence and enquired about the matter and found that the accident took place due to the negligent act of the consumer/complainant.  The complainant himself had told the 2^nd opposite party at the Medical College hospital, Thiruvananthapuram that on the day of alleged accident his wife on suspicion of  gas leakage in the cylinder, called the complainant to come and verify the same.  Immediately the complainant went to the kitchen and to confirmed whether there is gas leakage for which he lit the match stick closer to the knob of the cylinder and it resulted in burning of the knob.  As he quickly carried the cylinder out of the kitchen,  he sustained burn injuries.  The complainant himself admitted that the accident had taken place due to his ignorance as he lite the match box closer to the knob.  There is absolutely no relation whatsoever between the narration of  the accident given by the complainant at the medical college hospital and the allegation that he has subsequently raised in the present complaint. In the fire report also there is no mention of any kind of explosion of the gas cylinder or any such  damage. In fact if it was due  to any explosion of the cylinder, there would have been clear and conspicuous evidences of catching fire in or around the vicinity  of the kitchen.  More over there was absolutely no trace of any damage or causality there in the house of the complainant.  These being the true facts all the allegations made in the complaint are absolutely false and hence denied.  There was no deficiency in service at all on the part of the opposite party. 

4.     According to the 1^st opposite party they have insured the premises as well as the customers  with Additional 4^th opposite party(United India Insurance Company) for any exigencies that many occur.  According to 2^nd opposite party they have  insured the premises as well as the customers for any exigencies that may arise with the Oriental  Insurance Company Limited (Additional 3^rd opposite party) As per the terms of the policy issued by the additional 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties they are liable to compensate on behalf of the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties  for all the losses incurred in the accident.  So this forum if inclined to grant any amount to the complainant as compensation from the additional 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties.  1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount illegally claimed by the complainant or compensation and cost. 

5.     According to Opposite party No.1&2 the complainant has filed a frivolous and vexatious complaint rising false allegations without any materials truth on record.  The present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and filed with the sole and greedy intention to knock out  illegally some amount from both opposite parties on experimental basis.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  The complainant is not entitled to get any relief from both opposite parties.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with the compensatory cost to the opposite party.  No cause of action is mentioned in the complaint.

6.     The additional 3^rd opposite party would admit that they had issued a public liability policy in the name of 2^nd opposite party M/s.Kaveri Indane Services, for a period  commencing from 29.05.2013 to 28.05.2014, covering the risk specifically given under the policy.  As per the coverage given under the policy the liability of the company towards the injury sustained to the public is limited to the extent of coverage given under the policy.  As per the specific condition in the policy, the insured (2^nd opposite party) shall give immediate notice to the company in writing in respect of any claim under the policy.  But in this case though the insured is having full knowledge about the claim preferred by the complainant with them,  the insured failed to intimate the claim in writing to the 3^rd opposite party and thereby the insured in this case has willfully violated the policy condition.  The 2^nd opposite party has also failed to give necessary assistance and information about the claim to the 3^rd opposite party so as to enable the 3^rd opposite party to evaluate the admissibility of the claim and to assess to extent of loss sustained and to proceed the claim after complying the necessary formalities.  The above omission on the part of the insured is a clear violation of the policy condition and as such the insured has forfeited the right to get indemnified under the policy.

7.       The 1^st opposite party is having another insurance policy from the additional  4^th opposite party covering the risk of the registered consumer of the 2^nd opposite party.  As there was two policy subsisting with two different insurance companies covering the risk of the complainant as a registered customer, the liability of the opposite party is on ratable proportion of the compensation if any is found to be eligible by the complainant.  If at all the complainant is found to be eligible for any claim, the liability to compensate the complainant has to be apportioned among the opposite parties 3&4.

8.      The complainant  has not suffered any serious burn injury due to the alleged incident.  The compensation claimed by the complainant has no nexus either with the nature of injury suffered by the complainant or with any of its complications.  The complainant is trying to make a fortune out of a misfortune by making an exaggerated claim without legal or factual basis.  The additional 3^rd opposite party further prays to dismiss the claim with compensatory costs. 

9.      The additional 4^th opposite party would also admit that it had issued a public limited policy  in the name of 1^st opposite party for a period of 1 year from 02.05.2014 to 01.05.2015 covering the risk specifically given under the policy.  As per the coverage given under the policy the liability of the company towards the injury sustained to an authorized customer of the insured at the registered customer’s premises is limited to an extent of coverage given in the policy to a maximum of  Rs.5,00,000/- per event.  As per the policy condition No.1 of the claim procedure attached in the schedule of the policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the company in writing to the nearest office of the company with a copy to the policy issuing office in respect of any claim under the policy.  The insured shall lodge a complaint forthwith to the police.  But in this case the insured failed  to intimate the claim in writing to the additional 4^th opposite party and thereby willfully violated the policy condition by committing breach of policy condition.  The insured has failed to intimate the claim in writing before the opposite party and failed to give necessary assistance and information about the claim to the opposite party so as to enable the opposite party to evaluate the admissibility of the claim and to assess the extent of loss sustained and to proceed the claim after complying the necessary formalities.  The above omission on the part of the insured is a clear violation of the policy condition and as such the insured has forfeited  the right to get indemnified under this policy due to the aforementioned violation of policy condition.  The additional 4^th opposite party would further content that the 2^nd opposite party is having another insurance policy from 3^rd opposite party covering the risk of the registered consumer of the 2^nd opposite party. 

10.     The 3^rd and 4^th opposite party would further content that the complainant  has not suffered any serious burn injury due to the alleged incident.  The compensation claimed by the complainant has no nexus either with the nature of injury suffered by the complainant or with any of its complications.  The complainant is trying to make a fortune out of a misfortune by making an exaggerated claim without legal or factual basis.  The additional 4^th opposite party further pray to dismiss the claim with compensatory costs.

11.     In the light of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service  on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation as prayed for in the complaint?
3. What is the liability of each of the 4 opposite parties to pay compensation if the complainant is found eligible to pay compensation?
4. Relief and costs.

12.    Evidence on the side of  the complainant consists of the oral evidence of  PW1 and Ext.P1 to P5 and Ext.P6 to P8 subject to proof.  Evidence on the side of  opposite party No.1&2 consists of the oral evidence of DW1&2 and Ext.D1 to D4 documents.  Evidence on the side of the opposite party No.3&4 consists of  Ext.D5 documents only.

13.      Both sides have filed notes of argument.  Heard both sides.

Point No.1

14.    The following are the admitted facts in this case.    The complainant is a consumer of the 1^st opposite party Indane Gas Service.  The 2^nd opposite party is a delivery agent of cylinder containing  Indane Gas.  Additional 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties are the insurer of the 1^st opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party delivered the gas cylinder to the complainant  on 03.04.2015 through their delivery boy.  It is brought out in evidence that the said cylinder was installed by the delivery boy,  on 05.04.2015 when the complainant’s wife  switched on the stove in the morning as usual,  she saw fire in the regulator and due to the timely action of the complainant, the fire did not spread to more spaces of the building and saved the life of his wife and daughter that due to the mishap 45% burn injuries sustained to the complainant that  immediately the complainant was taken to Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and that   the fire was  extinguished by the police and the fire force.  On 10.07.2015 the complainant had caused to issue legal notice to the opposite parties demanding Rs.5,00,000/- for the injury sustained to him and Rs.1,00,000/- for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  But after receiving the notice the opposite parties did not send any reply and hence the complainant approached the Forum to redress his grievance. According to the complainant the fire occurred due to the negligence of the opposite party in ascertaining the quality of the cylinder, regulator and the installation of regulator and hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 

15.    Both opposite parties No.1&2 would  deny the allegation of deficiency in service on their part.  The complainant when he was examined as PW1 has sworn that she has taken delivery of the cylinder without verifying whether the cylinder is defective or not.  The delivery boy has brought the cylinder and connected with stove.  But at that time the delivery boy has not lit fire to the stove.  The complainant has specifically denied the suggestion of the opposite party that the delivery boy has fitted the gas cylinder to the stove after necessary verification.  It is also brought out in evidence through PW1 that though gas cylinder was fitted on 03.04.2015 the complainant and his family was out of the house in connection with the prayer at the church.  As there was convention at the church on the above  two days  they have consumed food from the church.

16.     The specific contention of the opposite party No.1&2 is that the incident has happened due to the inadvertence and carelessness and negligent handling of the gas and stove by the complainant and his wife.  According to the 2^nd opposite party the burn injury sustained to the complainant when he checked the knob of the cylinder by lilting the match stick due to the suspicion of his wife about the gas leakage.  But the complainant has totally denied the above contention of the opposite party.  When the complainant was in the witness box as PW1 the learned counsel  for the 2^nd opposite party has put a specific question that when the wife of the complainant informed the complainant that when she made on the cylinder smell of  gas has been emitting and on hearing the same the complainant lit the match stick and thereupon the gas leaked from the stove which was in the ‘on’ position.  But this question has been totally denied by PW1.  The contention in the written version as well as the case of the 2^nd opposite party put to PW1 are contradictory.

17.     In view of the materials available on record it is clear that the complainant has sustained burn injury when he  carried away the cylinder out of the  kitchen and threw it in the court yard by seeing fire in the regulator when his wife switched on the stove in the early morning on 05.04.2015.  It is also brought out in evidence that the complainant has sustained 45% of burn injuries.  The opposite parties have also no dispute with regard to the fact that fire occurred while using the gas cylinder delivered by the 2^nd opposite party.  Generally all house wives used to open the gas and lit fire without occurring  fire in the gas cylinder.  But in this case fire occurred on the gas cylinder which is an unusual situation.  According to the complainant it was due to the fact that the gas cylinder supplied by the 2^nd opposite party  was not free from leakage and was not in good condition and that is why fire occurred.  In the circumstances it is clear that the reason for fire occurred at the residence of the complainant is due to the negligence of the opposite party in not ascertaining the quality of the cylinder, regulator and tube installed on   the regulator.  It is the bounded duty of the agency delivering the gas cylinder  to conduct proper checkup before delivering the gas to ascertain that cylinder delivered is free from any defect and is in a working condition.  In this case the delivery boy deputed by the 2^nd opposite party has not only supplied the cylinder but also fitted the same with regulator connecting the gas stove.  It is also clear from the available evidence that though gas cylinder was supplied on 03.04.2015 the gas boy has not opened the knob of the gas cylinder and tested to know whether  it is properly functioning.  But after fitting the same the delivery boy left and on that day and on the 2^nd day the complainant and his wife not operated the stove since they had their food from the convention centre at the church and on early morning of  05.04.2015 am when the wife of the complainant attempted to operate the stove the fire occurred at the knob of the cylinder which itself would indicate that there is some defect in the cylinder which would definitely attract deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite parties No.1&2.

18.     The learned counsel for the opposite party No.1&2 has argued that the  complainant has not reported the alleged incident immediately to the opposite parties and thereby failed to comply with the compulsory formality when fire occurred due to the usage of gas cylinder.  The complainant has also not reported the fact to the police officials and the police has not registered any FIR regarding the accident.  It is true that there is no material before this Commission to show that neither the complainant nor his wife has reported the fact to the opposite parties or to the police.  But the facts and circumstances available on record would justify the non action of the complainant in this regard.  It is clear from the available materials including Ext.P3,P5&P6 documents and Ext.P7 series photographs  that the complainant has sustained severe burn injuries and the medical evidence available on record would indicate that the burn injury sustained was 45% .  Sustaining 45% burn injuries is very grave and there is every chance of succumbing to the burn injuries if no proper and timely treatment is given to the injured.  Fortunately for the complainant by knowing the fact of fire accident at the residence of the complainant police and fire force authorities rushed to the spot extinguished the fire and removed the injured complainant to the hospital.  It is also clear from the available materials that the complainant’s wife also accompanied the injured complainant to Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and has been helping the complainant as a bystander.  The only remaining person  available at the residence of the complainant is aged mother of the complainant who is unable to move even.  Even according to opposite party No.1&2 by knowing the accident DW1 rushed to the residence of the complainant.  In the circumstances it is crystal clear that the police and fire force officials have received information regarding the fire occurrence and opposite party No.1&2 also got information regarding the fire occurrence.  In the circumstances non reporting of the accident at the office of the opposite parties or at the police station or fire station by the complainant who has been undergoing treatment at the Medical College Hospital is not a ground to deny the legitimate claim of the complainant.

19.     The learned counsel for the opposite party No.1&2 has argued that there is no damage to the cylinder and the allegation of explosion of cylinder does not carry any truth and what might have happened is only simple burning of knob which would have happened due to ignorance and negligence  of the complainant while lighting the match stick closer to the knob.  The complainant has no case that the fire occurred by exploding the gas cylinder either in the complaint or in the proof affidavit nor even in the lawyer notice.  The argument of the opposite party No.1&2 that it might have happened due to the ignorance and negligence of the complainant while lighting the match stick is closer to the knob is based not on evidence but on surmises and hypothesis.  PW1 has not accepted such a suggestion made by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.1&2. 

20.    The counsel appearing for 3^rd and 4^th opposite party is one and the same.  The 3^rd and 4^th opposite party would admit D1 and D2 policies.  It is true that the 2^nd opposite party dealer has been examined as DW1 and she filed proof affidavit by reiterating the contention in her written version.  During cross examination by Additional 3^rd opposite party DW1 would admit that they have given intimation to the 4^th opposite party insurance company regarding the incident, DW1 would also admit that they have got information regarding the fire occurrence but after two days of the incident and her staff visited the residence of the complainant immediately after getting information that they have received lawyer notice caused to sent by the complainant but not sent any reply notice.  DW1 would also admit that….. I¯n-t¸mb sdKp-te-ädpw knen-­dpw R§-fpsS Hm^o-kn-ep-­v.  AXv  replace sNbvXv ]pXn-bh sImSp-¯p. …  hmZn  Bip-]-{Xn-bn \n¶pw  NnInÕ Ignªv UnkvNmÀPv sNbvXp h¶-Xn-\p-ti-j-amWv I¯n-t¸mb K-ymkv knen-­À, Ìu, sd{^n-P-td-äÀ F¶nh amdn sImSp-¯-Xv.  AXn-s\m¶pw ss]k hm§n-bn-Ã. It is also brought out in evidence through DW1 that they have not taken any steps to establish that the regulator supplied was defect free by getting it examined by any expert.

21.     It is pertinent to point out that DW2 would  admit  that it is the bounded duty of the 1^st opposite party to intimate the fact of accident to the insurance company.  But the 1^st opposite party has not intimated the 4^th opposite party regarding the accident in writing.  It is also brought out in evidence that the dealer (Op2) has taken another policy with 3^rd opposite party and therefore 2 paralleled policies are available to indemnify the damage caused to the complainant.  DW2 would categorically admit during cross examination of the complainant that as per Ext.P2 policy if the complainant has sustained injury the 4^th opposite party by virtue of Ext.D2 is liable to pay compensation by indemnifying the 1^st opposite party.  It is also brought out in evidence through DW2 that it is the duty of the delivery boy to fit gas cylinder if it is necessary and it is feasible.  According to DW2 the delivery boy has checked the gas cylinder and confirmed himself that the cylinder is defect free and the delivery boy has noted the other defective cylinders in the defective cylinder register which has been kept in the office.  But the 1^st opposite party has no such case in the written version nor produced the defective cylinder along with version.  However the 1^st opposite party has got marked the above defective cylinder register as D4 by examining DW2 subsequently.  But DW2 at whose office the said register is being kept has no such case either in the version or in the proof affidavit.  Ext.D4 is only an extract of the alleged defective cylinder register.  But there is no mention anywhere in Ext.D4 that it is an extract of defective cylinder register.  As it has been produced at a belated stage and brought out  anomalies and corrections in  Ext.D4 register it cannot be accepted in evidence and acted up on.

22.     On evaluating the entire materials available on record including the admission of DW1&DW2 pointed out above we have no hesitation to hold that the gas cylinder, regulator and tube supplied to the complainant by the delivery boy of the 2^nd opposite party was not defect free and hence fire occurred when the complainant’s wife was attempting to lit fire to the stove.  Hence it is clear that there is clear negligence and deficiency in service on the part of  opposite party No.1&2.

23.    It is also brought out in evidence that the complainant has caused to send Ext.P4 lawyer notice intimating that it is only because  the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of  opposite party No.1&2  the accident occurred and also calling up on the opposite party to pay Rs.5,00,000/-  as compensation.  The opposite parties have not responded, though they received notice.  The learned counsel for the opposite party No.1&2 have argued that the present complaint is wholly misconceived and groundless and has been filed with greedy intention of making fortune out of misfortune on an experimental basis.  According to the learned counsel there is no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the opposite parties.  The materials available on record including the admission of opposite parties would show that fire occurred while using the gas cylinder supplied by opposite party No.1&2.  In the circumstances  it cannot be held that the complaint is wholly misconceived and groundless.  As it is established that the fire occurred while using the gas cylinder, regulator, tube and gas stove supplied by opposite party No.1&2 it is the duty of the opposite party to establish that the fire occurred due to the negligent use of the gas cylinder and gas stove by the complainant and his wife.  But there is absolutely no convincing evidence available to prove that fact except mere suggestions which were denied by PW1.

24.     It is also brought out in evidence that immediately after the accident the police and fire force authorities reached at the residence and subsided the fire and thereby saved more danger to the residence of the complainant.  He was also taken to the MCH, Thiruvananthapuram and on examination it was found that he sustained 45% burn injuries.  According to him as a result of the supply of gas in sub standards gas cylinder and the regulator attached was also sub standard one fire occurred, that as a result of 45% burn injuries sustained to him and he could not continue his avocation of driving and he has also spent more amount for treatment expenses and at the time of treatment he was unable to continue his ordinary pursuit and therefore he is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- from opposite party no.1&2 for the loss sustained to him and also Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service.  Ext.P5 is the discharge summary issued from the Medical College Hospital Thiruvananthapuram indicating that the complainant has sustained 45% of burn injuries due to accident burns from gas cylinder.  It is true that Ext.P4 has been marked subject to proof.  But the 2^nd opposite party when she was in the witness box as DW1 would admit that the complainant was admitted and treated at Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and as per Ext.P5 discharge summary it is stated that the complainant has sustained 45% burn injuries.  Ext.P6 is the Malayala Manorama news paper dated 06.04.2015 containing the news item of fire occurrence at the residence of the complainant.  The news item states in Ext.P6  is in tune with the case of the complainant and it is also stated that the complainant has sustained substantial burn injuries during the incident.  Ext.P8 is the certificate issued by the S.I of Police, Kottarakkara wherein it is stated that during the incident the complainant has sustained grave burn injuries and he undergone treatment for a pretty long period.  It is also stated in Ext.P8 certificate that at the time of accident police and fire force authorities reached at the residence of the complainant and engaged in rescue operations but not registered any case. 

25.    The learned counsel for opposite party No.1&2 has vehemently argued that Ext.P5 to P8 documents were marked subject to proof and hence not acceptable in evidence.  But it is to be pointed out that trial under the Consumer Protection Act is a summary trial and the burden of the complainant is to prove the case to the preponderance of probability and not beyond any reasonable doubt.  It is to be pointed out that Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation. It is further to be pointed out in the light of unopposed Ext.P4 lawyer notice and also in the light of the admission of DW1&DW2 when they are in the  witness box it is proved and convincingly that the complainant has sustained 45% burn injuries during the fire accident.  It is clear that a person who sustained more than 40% burn injuries is likely to die if no proper and timely treatment is given.  Fortunately the complainant has escaped from the fire injuries after 15 days treatment and continued his treatment for a long period. 

26.    It is also clear that the above burn injuries prevented from continuing his avocation as a driver.  According to PW1 as a result of sustaining burn injuries he has to spent huge amount for his treatment and during the time of treatment has to seek the assistance of others and he could not be able to perform his ordinary pursuit.  It is true that the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to prove the expenses met by him for treatment and other expenses.  He has also not quantified the expenses under each head.  But that alone is not a ground to allow a reasonable compensation to the complainant to compensate the pain and suffering sustained by the complainant and medical and other expenses met by him and also for the loss of employment.  In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above we are inclined to hold that the complainant is entitled to get compensation to the tune of  Rs.3,00,000/- on this count.  As defeiciency in service on the part of opposite party No.1&2 is proved the complainant is also entitled to get a reasonable compensation on that count. The complainant has claimed Rs.1,00,000/- on this count which is quiet reasonable.  The point answered accordingly.

Point No.3

27.         In view of our finding with regard to point No.1 it is clear that due to the negligence and deficiency in service the fire occurred at the gas cylinder by leaking gas from the cylinder while switching on the gas stove.  Hence Opposite party No.1 the 1^st opposite party the manufacturer and supplier of the gas cylinder and the 2^nd opposite party the agent and distributor are equally liable.  But according to 1^st and 2^nd opposite party both of they have taken Ext.D2&D1 insurance policies respectively to make amend the loss caused to them due to any exigency that many occur at the insured premises and customers.  Though 3^rd and 4^th opposite party would admit the issuance of Ext.D2&D1 insurance policies, they would deny the liability to pay compensation on the ground if violation of policy conditions.  As per the coverage given under the policy the liability of the company towards the injury sustained to the public is limited to the extent of coverage given under the policy.  As per the specific condition in the policy, the insured (2^nd opposite party) shall give immediate notice to the company in writing in respect of any claim under the policy.  But in this case though the insured is having full knowledge about the claim preferred by the complainant with them,  the insured failed to intimate the claim in writing to the 3^rd opposite party and thereby the insured in this case has willfully violated the policy condition.  The 2^nd opposite party has also failed to give necessary assistance and information about the claim to the 3^rd opposite party so as to enable the 3^rd opposite party to evaluate the admissibility of the claim and to assess to extent of loss sustained and to proceed the claim after complying the necessary formalities.  The above omission on the part of the insured is a clear violation of the policy condition and as such the insured has forfeited the right to get indemnified under the policy.

28.     The 4^th opposite party also would content that it had issued a public limited policy  in the name of 1^st opposite party for a period of 1 year from 02.05.2014 to 01.05.2015 covering the risk specifically given under the policy.  As per the coverage given under the policy the liability of the company towards the injury sustained to an authorized customer of the insured at the registered customer’s premises is limited to an extent of coverage given in the policy to a maximum of  Rs.5,00,000/- per event.  As per the policy condition No.1 of the claim procedure attached in the schedule of the policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the company in writing to the nearest office of the company with a copy to the policy issuing office in respect of any claim under the policy.  The insured shall lodge a complaint forthwith to the police.  But in this case the insured failed  to intimate the claim in writing to the additional 4^th opposite party and thereby willfully violated the policy condition by committing breach of policy condition.  The insured has failed to intimate the claim in writing before the opposite party and failed to give necessary assistance and information about the claim to the opposite party so as to enable the opposite party to evaluate the admissibility of the claim and to assess the extent of loss sustained and to proceed the claim after complying the necessary formalities.  The above omission on the part of the insured is a clear violation of the policy condition and as such the insured has forfeited  the right to get indemnified under this policy due to the aforementioned violation of policy condition.

     As there is no reliable materials to prove that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties who are the insured have complied with specific conditions stipulated in Ext.D1, D2 policies and D5 policy condition both D3 and D4 are not liable to indemnify the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties accordingly they are exonerated.  In view of the materials discussed above we hold that the opposite party No.1&2 are liable to pay compensation to the complainant as held under point No.2.

     In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms.

1. Opposite party No.1&2 are directed to pay compensation for pain and suffering treatment expenses and loss of employment etc. to the tune of  Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant.
2. Opposite party No.1&2 are directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and consequent mental agony to the complainant.
3. Opposite party No.1&2 are directed to pay costs Rs.5000/- to the complainant.
4. Opposite party No.3&4 are found not liable to pay compensation and they are exonerated from liability.
5. Opposite party No.1&2 are liable to pay  50% each of the amount of compensation and costs awarded under relief No.i to iii  within 45 days from today failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the same along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum except for costs from the date of complaint till realization from opposite party No.1&2 under Section 71&72 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the  25^th  day of  October   2022.

E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

       Stanly Harold:Sd/-

      Forwarded/by Order

        Senior Superintendent

INDEX  

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-

PW1            :Jayan@Johnson

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext P1         :         Photo Copy of  Gas book.

Ext P2         :         Photo Copy of indemnity bond.

Ext.P3         :         Photo Copy of  fire report

Ext.P4         :         True copy of lawyer notice dated 10.07.2015.

Ext.P5         :         Discharge summary from Medical College Hospital,

Thiruvananthapuram dated 19.04.2015.

Ext.P6(S/P) :         Paper cutting (Malayala Manorama)

Ext.P7 series(S/P) :Photographs.

Ext.P8(S/P) :         Certificate of testimony.

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-

DW1           :         Jayasree Sandhya  Devi

DW2           :         Rahul M.S

Documents marked for the opposite party:-

Ext.D1        :         Policy certificate from Oriental Insurance Company.

Ext.D2        :         Public liability policy certificate from United India Insurance

       Co.Ltd.

Ext.D3        :         Copy of authorization letter dated 21.12.2020.

Ext.D4        :         Copy of defective cylinder register.

Ext.D5        :         Policy with condition(United India Insurance Company Ltd.)

Ext.D6        :         Certified true copy of the policy with conditions.