Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/74

Baljit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Oil Corpn.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Harpreet Singh Adv.

20 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:74 dated 24.02.2020.                                                 Date of decision: 20.12.2023.

 

1. Baljit Kaur aged about 38 years wife of Sh. Baljit Singh Khehra and d/o. Late Sh. Gurdev Singh, r/o. H. No.162, Dosanjh, District Moga.
2. Baljinder Kaur aged about 29 years wife of Sh. Gurmeet Singh Gill and d/o. Late Sh. Gurdev Singh, r/o. Village Rajoana Khurd, Rajoana Kalan, District Ludhiana.
3.  Harmeet Singh aged about 38 years S/o. Sh. Kamikar Singh
4. Tarandeep Singh aged about 13 years, minor son of Harmeet Singh, through his father, next friend and guardian Sh. Harmeet Singh, both rs/o. Village Abbuwal, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana.                                                                                                  ..…Complainants

                                                Versus

1. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (MD), Indian Area Office, Delhi 2^nd Floor, World Trade Centre, Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001, through its Managing Director.
2. M/s. Chopra Gas Service, Near Singh Sabha Gurudwara, Akalgarh, Sudhar Bazar, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana-141004, through its Proprietor/Partner.
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Ludhiana Road, Raikot, District Ludhiana, through its Manager.

…..Opposite parties 

4. Sukhvir Singh S/o. Sh. Gurdev Singh, r/o. Village Abbuwal, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana.

..…Performa Opposite party.

Complaint Under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainants            :         Sh. Harpreet Singh, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Sh. K.L. Kochar, Advocate.

For OP2                         :         Sh. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate.

For OP3                         :         Sh. R.K. Chand, Advocate.

For OP4                         :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Gurdev Singh married to Tarjeet Kaur and three children i.e. complainant No.1 Baljit Kaur, complainant No.2 Baljinder Kaur and OP4 Sukhvir Singh were born out of their wedlock. Sh. Gurdev Singh was a subscriber of LPG gas connection from OP2, who is distributor of OP1 manufacturer. Complainant No.3 Harmeet Singh got married to Kuldeep Kaur and complainant No.4 Tarandeep Singh was born from their wedlock on 13.06.2006, who is minor and is in the custody of his father and guardian complainant No.3.

                   The complainant stated that on 15.05.2018, Tarjeet Kaur wife of Gurdev Singh mother of complainant No.1 and 2, called Kuldeep Kaur wife of complainant No.3 to help her in changing the LPG cylinder. After changing the cylinder, when they tried to light the burner with a matchstick, then suddenly a blast took place due to which Kuldeep Kaur, Tarjeet Kaur and her husband Gurdev Singh received burn injuries. The injureds  were taken to DMC&H, Ludhiana where Tarjeet Kaur died on the same day and her husband Gurdev Singh died on 19.05.2018. Even Kuldeep Kaur also succumbed to her injuries on 18.05.2018 due to severe burns. Complainant No.3 lodged a General Diary No.9 dated 18.05.2018 regarding the incident at P.S. Sudhar, Ludhiana (Rural). The complainants further stated that the LPG cylinder installed in the house of Gurdev Singh/Tarjeet Kaur was faulty due to leakage of excess gas which resulted in the blast and deaths of the persons. According to the complainants, they came to know later that public risk occurring during the use of LPG cylinder is covered by the LPG dealers by taking an Insurance Policy.  But neither OP1 and OP2 intimated about the policy nor supplied any copy of the same. In the month of July 2019, the complainants came to know that OP2 had covered public risk by taking an Insurance Policy No.36110248171300000002 from OP3 having validity 26.06.2017 to 25.06.2018. The complainants sent a legal notice dated 17.07.2019 to the OPs for paying compensation but no reply has been received till date. The complainants further sent a legal notice dated 07.08.2019 upon the OPs but no reply has been received till date. The complainants further stated that OP1 had provided compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- on account of death of Tarjeet Kaur and Rs.6,00,000/- on account of death of Kuldeep Kaur but the said compensation is highly insufficient. However, they are liable to be compensated by the OPs as the Insurance policy provides for public liability up to Rs.10,00,000/- which the OPs have not paid till date nor gave any reply to the legal notice, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainants claimed to have suffered immense physical and mental agony. In the end, the complainants prayed for issuing direction to the OPs to pay Rs.9,50,000/- as enhanced compensation and to pay Rs.10,00,000/- under the public liability clause of the policy. The complainants also claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental pain and agony besides litigation expenses.

2.                Upon notice, OP3 appeared and filed written statement and by taking preliminary objections, assailed the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction; maintainability of the complaint, concealment of material facts;  mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties etc. OP3 stated that the alleged loss is not covered under the policy and as per terms and conditions of the policy claim is not payable. Since the claim is not falling in the preview of the policy as such complaint is liable to be dismissed. OP3 further stated that OP2 had obtained Multi Perils Policy and said policy no.36110248171300000002 valid w.e.f 26.06.2017 to 25.06.2018 was issued to OP2 along with terms and conditions of the policy. The insured/OP2 opted Section III, Section IV, Section V and Section VII in the said policy. The sum insured for Section III was Rs.7,50,000/-, the sum insured for Section IV was Rs.1,75,000/-, the sum insured for Section V was Rs.20,000/- and the sum insured for Section VII was Rs. 10,00,000/-. Section VII relates with Public Liability and in Section VII it has been defined under which circumstances the claim is payable. Section VII is reproduced as under:-

“The company will indemnify the insured in respect of all sums which the insured is legally liable to pay as compensation and litigation expenses incurred by the insure at the company's written consent in respect of the accidental death or bodily injury to any person other than a person under the insured's service and insured's family members and/of accidental damage to property caused by or arising from the installation of gas filled liquefied petroleum gas cylinder in the premises of the insured's customers or whilst such cylinders from the insured's premises are in the course of being carried for installation in the premises of the insured's customer or whilst such empty cylinders are in the course of being carried from the premises of the insured's customers to the insured's premises, not exceeding in all for the compensation and litigation expenses the limit of anyone accident as specified in the schedule for anyone accident or a series of accidents arising from anyone event and any one year limit (as stated in the schedule) for all accident during any one period of insurance and also whilst lying at the insured's premises specified in the schedule.”

 

OP3 further stated that in view of the said clause, the claim regarding Public Liability is payable only if the accident has occurred during the course of installation of gas cylinder in the premises of the insured's customer or whilst such cylinders from the insured's premises are in the course of being carried for installation in the premises of the insured's customer by any employee of the insured. According to OP3, the circumstances under which Tarjeet Kaur and Kuldeep Kaur were died are not covered under the said policy as per terms and conditions of the policy. The complainants could get the claim from the OP1 which they have already received from OP1. The complainants have already received Rs.18,00,000/- on account of death Tarjeet Kaur and Rs.6,00,000/- on account of death of Kuldeep Kaur from OP1 and now they have no right to file the present complaint. The complainants have admitted that in para no.8 of the complaint that they have received compensation to the tune of Rs. 18,00,000/- on account of death of Tarjeet Kaur and Rs.6,00,000/- on account of death of Kuldeep Kaur. OP3 further stated that there is no privity of contract between the complainants and OP3.

                   On merits, OP3 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. However, OP3 stated that the complainants have not mentioned any specific time when they changed the cylinder. In fact, from the contents of complaint, it is shown that the regulator had not been affixed on the cylinder while changing the cylinder and that would be the reason of blast in the cylinder which is the sole negligence of the person who changed the cylinder. OP3 further stated that the complainants have not given any serial number and cylinder number to show any connection of the cylinder with OP2. OP3 has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                Initially, none turned up on behalf of the OP1, OP2 and OP4 despite service of notice through registered post and as such, the OP1, OP2 and OP4 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.04.2021.

                   However, OP2 filed application to join the proceedings, which was allowed vide order dated 14.07.2021 with permission to join the proceedings from the stage the case is pending at. As such, OP2 filed written statement and by taking preliminary objections, assailed the complaint on the grounds of maintainability of complaint, suppression of material facts and the complaint being time barred. OP2 further stated that the complainants had already received an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- being full and final amount from OP1 up to their satisfaction and as such, the complaint is abuse of process of law. 

                   On merits, OP2 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. However, OP2 averred that the negligence was on the part of Taranjit Kaur and Kuldeep Kaur at the time of changing the LPG cylinder who did not properly affix the regulator on the cylinder for the proper use of LPG gas stove. Instead of fixing the regulator Kuldeep Kaur, Taranjit Kaur and her husband Baldev Singh without checking the regulator lighter the gas on, which was already leaking due to improper affixation of regulator on the cylinder and the entire happening taken place. Even the rubber tube of gas stove was also leaked and there is no fault of OP2.  OP2 further stated that the compensation amount of Rs.18,00,000/- was more than sufficient and claimant did not raise any objection at the time of receiving the compensation amount.  OP2 has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                On 07.04.2022, Sh. K.L. Kochar, Advocate field power of attorney on behalf of OP1 along with application for joining the proceedings from the stage the complaint was pending at. The said application was allowed vide order dated 28.10.2022 by permitting OP1 to join the proceedings from the stage the complaint is pending at. As the complaint was pending for submission of evidence by the parties and as such, the counsel for OP1 submitted affidavit Ex. RX along with documents Ex. R4/1 to Ex. R4/11 and closed the evidence.

                   In its affidavit Ex. RX Sh. Sukhraj Singh, Asst. Manager (LPG-S), Ludhiana-IILSA, Indane Divisional Office Chandigarh stated that complaint is not maintainable against OP1. The complainants have already received compensation to the tune of Rs.18,00,000/- on account of death of Tarjit Kaur and Kuldeep Kaur. OP1 further stated that it had paid compensation to the tune of Rs.18,25,000/- i.e. Rs.6,00,000/- on account of death of Gurdev Singh, Rs.6,00,000/- on account of Tarjit Kaur, Rs.6,00,000/- on account of Kuldeep Kaur and Rs.25,000/- as property damage of Gurdev Singh, which was duly received by the complainants. As such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed qua OP1.

5.                In support of their claim, complainant No.1 Baljit Kaur, tendered her affidavit Ex. CA in which she reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainants also tendered documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C46 and closed the evidence.

                   OP2 failed to conclude evidence despite grant of sufficient opportunities and as such, evidence of OP2 was closed by order vide order dated 28.08.2023.

                   The counsel for OP1 tendered affidavit Ex. RX Sh. Sukhraj Singh, Asst. Manager (LPG-S), Ludhiana-IILSA, Indane Divisional Office Chandigarh along with documents Ex. OP4/1 to Ex. OP4/11 and closed the evidence.

                   The counsel for OP3 tendered affidavit Ex. RW3/A of Ms. Punam Sharma, Manager along with documents Ex. RW3/1 to Ex. RW3/2 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written statements along with affidavits and documents produced on record by both the parties.

7.                   The complainants being the legal heirs of deceased Tarjeet Kaur, Kuldep Kaur and Gurdev Singh have sought enhanced compensation over and above Rs.24,00,000/- (Rs.18,00,000+Rs.6,00,000) from OP1 and OP2 and further claimed reimbursement of Rs.10,00,000/- from OP3  besides claiming compensation and litigation expenses. Perusal of Accident Investigation Report  (Ex. R4/5 and Ex. R4/6) confirms that on 15.05.2018 a fire incident took place in the house of consumer/deceased Gurdev Singh resulting in serious injuries to Gurdev Singh, his wife Tarjeet Kaur and Kuldeep Kaur, neighbour who succumbed to injuries on 19.05.2018and 18.05.2018 respectively. As per Accident Investigation Report, the possible cause of incident may be the either unclean burner or the faulty lighter (spark lighter) due to which the burner was not lighted and Smt. Tarjeet Kaur assumed that the connected cylinder has got exhausted, thus she went out to call the neighbor for help, whereas there was LPG in the connected cylinder, which got leaked in meantime. When Smt. Tarjeet Kaur returned with her neighbor, Smt. Kuldeep Kaur and replaced the now empty cylinder with new cylinder (delivered on 11.03.2018) and tried to light the burner, the leaked LPG caught fire that led to engulfing of both the ladies and Sh. Gurdev Singh who was sitting on cot opposite the kitchen.

8.                The analysis of the cause as discussed in detail, clearly spells out that it is a case of neglect by mistake on the part of the consumer of LPG. The detailed Investigation report clearly and specifically contradicts the bad allegations of the complainants that the accident has taken place due to faulty installation of LPG cylinder at the house of Gurdev Singh which resulted in leakage of gas and blast in the house.  The complainants have not examined any expert to substantiate their claim.

9.                Despite the fact that Accident Investigation Reports exonerates OP1 and OP2 and still OP1 preferred a claim with ICICI Lombard Insurance Company for compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased and a claim of Rs.18,25,000/- was  finally settled and the said amount was disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased vide settlement voucher. This amount was accepted by the complainants by appended their signatures on the settlement voucher and on the discharge voucher Ex. R4/3 dated 29.08.2018 as well as settlement voucher Ex. R4/4 dated 29.08.2018. Further the complainants did not raise any murmur or protest at the time of accepting the amount. So now the complainants are estopped from claiming enhanced compensation without putting forth any reasonable cause or ground.

10.              Before adverting to the entitlement of the complainants, if any, from OP2 and OP3, the relevant clauses and coverage is as stipulated in Policy Schedule (Ex. R3/1) and terms and conditions of Multi Perils Insurance Policy for Liquefied Petroleum Gas Dealers (EX. R3/2):-           

Sr. No.	Section Opted	Description	Sum Insured
	Section III	GAS Cylinders 50	750000
	Section IV	Money In Transit Rs.150000 Cash in Safe Rs.25000	175000
	Section V	Fidelity Guarantee	20000
	Section VII	Public Liability	1000000

                   Section-VII : PUBLIC LIABILITY

The Company will indemnify the Insured in respect of all sums which the insured is legally liability to pay as compensation and litigation expenses incurred by the insured at the company’s written consent in respect of accidental death or bodily injury to any person other than a person under the insured’s service and insured’s family members and/of liquefied petroleum gas cylinder in the premises of the insured’s customers or whilst such cylinders from the insured’s premises are in the course of being carried for installation in the premises of the insured’s customers or whilst such empty cylinders are in the course of being carried from the premises of the insured’s customers to the insured’s premises, not exceeding in all for the compensation and litigation expenses the limit of Any One Accident as specified in the schedule for any one accident or a serious of accidents arising from any one event and Any One Year Limit (as stated in the schedule) for all accidents during any one period of insurance and also whilst lying at the insured’s premises specified in the schedule.

SECTION – IX : PERSONAL ACCIDENT       

If the Insured or any named partner director or member of managerial staff or employees of the Insurer's permanently working with the Insured shall sustain bodily injury solely and directly caused by accident violent external and visible means resulting in death or disablement as stated hereinafter the Company shall pay to the Insured or his Assignee/his legal personal representative the sum or sums hereinafter set forth, that is to say:

(a) such injury shall within Twelve calendar months of its occurrence be the sole and direct cause of the death of the Insured, the Capital Sum Insured stated in the Schedule hereto.

(b) If such injury shall within Twelve calendar months of its occurrence be the sole and direct cause of the total and irrecoverable loss of

i) Sight of both eyes, or of the actual loss by physical separation of two entire hands or two entire feet, or of one entire hand and one entire foot, or of such loss of sight of one eye and such loss of one entire hand or one entire foot, the Capital Sum Insured stated in the Schedule hereto

ii) Use of two hands or two feet, or of one hand or one foot, or of such loss of sight of one eye and such loss of use of one hand or one foot, the Capital Sum Insured stated in the Schedule hereto.

c) If such injury shall within twelve calendar months of its occurrence be the sole and direct cause of the total and irrecoverable loss of

i) the sight of one eye, or of the actual loss by physical separation of one entire hand or of one entire foot, fifty percent (50%) of the Capital Sum Insured stated in the                                  Schedule hereto

ii) total and irrecoverable loss of use of a hand or a foot without physical separation, fifty percent (50%) of the Capital Sum Insured stated in the Schedule hereto.

 

Note For the purpose of Clause (b) and Clause (c) above, physical separation of a hand means separation at or above the wrist and of the foot at or above the ankle.

 

d) If such injury shall, as a direct consequence thereof, immediately permanently totally and absolutely, disable the Insured person from engaging in any employment or occupation of any description whatsoever, then a lump sum equal to hundred percent (100%) of the Capital Sum Insured.

 

e) In such injury shall within twelve calendar months of its occurrence be the sole and direct cause of the total and/or partial and irrecoverable loss of use or of the actual loss by physical separation of the following, then the percentage of the Capital Sum Insured as indicated below shall be payable.

Percentage of Capital Sum Insured

i.	Loss of toes Great Great Other than great, if more than toe lost each	All Both phalanges One phalanx	20 5 2 1
ii.	Loss of hearing	both ears	75
iii.	Loss of hearing	One ear	30
iv.	Loss of four fingers & thumb of one hand		40
v.	Loss of four fingers		35
vi.	Loss of thumb	both phalanges one phalanx	25 10
vii.	Loss of thumb	Three phalanges or two phalanges or one phalanx	10
viii.	Loss of middle finger	Three phalanges or two phalanges or one phalanx	6
ix.	Oss of ring finger	Three phalanges or two phalanges or one phalanx	5
x.	Loss of little finger	Three phalanges or two phalanges or one phalanx	4
xi.	Loss of metacarpals	First or second (additional) or third, fourth or fifth (additional)	3
xii.	Any other permanent partial disablement		% as assessed by the Panel doctor of the Company

 

f) If such injury shall be sole and direct cause of temporary total disablement, then so long as the Insured person shall be totally disabled from engaging in any employment or occupation of any description whatsoever, a sum at the rate of one percent (1%) of the Capital Sum Insured stated in the Schedule hereto per week, but in any case not exceeding Rs.3,000/- per week in a, under all policies.

SECTION-XP.A BENEFIT TO ANY CUSTOMER OR ANY MEMBER OF HIS FAMILY OR ANY OTHER PERSON IN THE PREMSIES WHERE CYLINDER IS INSTALED.

If any customer or any member of his family or any other person in the premises of the customer shall sustain bodily injury solely and directly caused by accidental violent external and visible means resulting in death or disablement as stated hereinafter due to installation of Cylinder. The company shall pay to the customer/member of the family/other person in the premises of the customer the sum or sums set forth therein. The Death and Total Disablement benefits which are provided herein are similar to the benefits as described in Section IX of this policy under items (a) to (e). P.S. This benefit will not accrue to the insured and his employees.”

11.              An agreement of insurance essentially binds the parties to the agreement and neither of the party can add or subtract the terms and the conditions of an insurance agreement. From the perusal of insurance policy terms and conditions, it is evident that OP2 had opted for Section III, Section IV, Section V and Section VII of the agreement and the different sums were insured. The complainants are referring to Section VII with regard to the public liability of OP2 being a dealer and have the coverage of Rs.10,00,000/-. A careful reading of Section VII makes it amply clear that since occurrence took place at the residence of consumer/deceased Gurdev Singh where the said premises is not covered by public liability clause as the risk location covered under the said public liability is the premises of OP2 Near  Singh Sabha Gurudwara, Village Akalgarh, District Moga. Therefore, Section VII of the agreement is inapplicable for the settlement of claim of the complainants.

12.              The counsel for the complainants has also drawn the attention of this Commission on the Section IX and X of the Policy Schedule Ex. R3/1 and tried to impress upon this Commission that this case falls within the scope of these sections. The clause IX and X certainly provides the procedure and extent of compensation to be disbursed in case of accidental death or injury that took place due to accident at the premises of a LPG customer but OP2 did not opt for these Sections at the time of availing insurance as it is clearly demonstrated from the perusal of these covered under the policy in policy schedule Ex. R3/A. In the absence of specific coverage, no liability can be fastened upon OP2. As such, the complainants have failed to establish their case for enhancement of compensation.

13.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

14.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (SanjeevBatra) Member                        Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:20.12.2023.

Gobind Ram.