Sri Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member
Instant complaint has been filed u/s 17(1)(a)(i) of the C P Act, 1986 by the complainant against the deficiencies in rendering services to him by the OPs of the instant complaint.
The facts, in brief, having relevance with the instant complaint were that the complainant, a consumer of domestic gas connection, having Consumer No. C X 5255728 S.V. No. 100000524572333 dated 20/01/2014 under the OP No. 2, being an agency under OP No. 1 gas distributor Company, received one gas cylinder from the OP No. 2 agency on 16/01/2015. The said gas cylinder, immediately after being delivered, displayed some defects. The Complainant then informed the OP No.2, the disturbance he was facing with the cylinder at about 2.16.29PM on the same day.
The OP No. 2, in response to the telephonic information, had sent one allegedly unskilled mechanic who, while checking the installation, mishandled the cylinder causing a fire to be broken out leading to the bursting of the cylinder causing, in turn, burning injuries to self as well as fatal injuries to the mother and sister of the complainant.
The mother and sister were first brought to the Kolkata Bhatpara State General Hospital wherefrom they were referred to R G Kar Hospital. Priyabala Ghosh , being the mother of the complainant, however, was ultimately admitted to ESI hospital, Manicktala and Miss Tulshi Bala Ghosh, being the sister of the Complainant, was referred first to May Fair Hospital and therefrom to NRS Hospital.
Priya Bala Ghosh ultimately succumbed to her injury on 18th. January, 2018. An FIR informing her death out of the subject incident was recorded at Jagaddal P. S. on the same day under No. 48115 dated 18/01/2015. Miss Tulshi Rani Ghosh who also received serious burning injury breathed her last on 29/04/2015.
Efforts were made thereafter for payment of compensation by the OPs for the said two deaths. No result could be yielded after repeated persuasion and representation made on 03/03/2015, 16/04/2015, 15/06/2015 and 23/05/2015. Even effective result could not be ensured through intervention of the Consumer Affairs Department, Govt. of West Bengal. Lastly, after being so advised, the Complainant filed the instant Complaint Case before the Ld. District Forum.
We have heard the Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of the Complainant and the OP No. 1.
The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Complainant, in course of his submission , iterated the facts narrated in the complaint while trying to establish his claim. He went on to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in first Appeal No. 455 of 2015 [ Indian Oil Corporation Limited—Vs—Ms Khushi and ors] reported in IV (2015) CPJ 696 (NC) wherein, while resolving the real conflict between M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and United India Insurance Company Ltd. About the liability of the Insurance Company to pay against the death claim in terms of money in similar circumstances against the valid policy, the Hon’ble National Commission observed at para 6 “………..It is well known fact that the Insurance Companies deliberately frame ‘Rules of Estoric’, meaning (few can understand). In the present case, the Insurance Company has not elliptically (in not so many words) clarified the position. As a matter of facts, such like tactics, generally have to be boomberged.” And was pleased to offer its kind findings at para 7 “……….Counsel of the Insurance Company was asked to explain the position. However, he indulged in ‘hubble bubble’ and did not clarify the facts. It is, thus, clear that the OP 7 is liable to pay the sum of Rs. 10,00,000. Rest of the amount be paid by the Appellant, as already ordered.”
With this submission, the Ld. Advocate prayed that keeping in view the nature of the case which is almost identical in nature and character to that of the case referred to above, the compensation at the same rate should be directed to be paid to the complainant by the Insurance Company for each of the two deceased.
The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the OP No. 1, on the other hand, submitted that the information received from the complainant about the incident was duly forwarded to the OP no. 3, the concerned Insurance company with which the policy for public liability coverage having validity for the period in question , was being maintained.
As continued, the death certificate of the mother of the complainant was also subsequently forwarded to the said Insurance Company.
As regards the death of the sister of the complainant, the Ld. Advocate went on to submit that the OP No.1 was not in receipt of the death certificate. Moreover, as submitted, the said sister died on 29/04/2016 which was long after the happening of the accidental fire.
Referring to running page 26, the Ld. Advocate submitted that the patient was released on risk bond on the following day of the date of incident. The Ld. Advocate referred further to the running page 25 and submitted that the R G Kar Medical College, Kolkata recorded the degree of the burning injury as 30% on the date of the incident. Running pages 21, 22 and 23 were all, as continued, the supportive evidences in respect of the patient’s receiving of OPD treatment of which the running page 23 was especially significant as the degree of burn was recorded therein as 15%
The Ld. Advocate referred to the running pages 30, 31 and 32 which were related to neuropsychiatric treatment and submitted that those papers were having no relevance with the instant issue.
The Complainant, as continued, claimed an exorbitant amount of Rs. 48,00,000/- as compensation which included the compensation of the death of his sister who, as evident from the record, did not die by the accidental fire.
The Ld. Advocate, with the above submissions, prayed for the order to be passed keeping in view that the OP No. 1 was having no deficiency in rendering services.
We have perused the papers on record and considered the submissions of the Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of the participating sides.
The happening of the incident, receiving burning injuries by the sister and deceased mother of the Complainant, lodging of FIR and the Complainant’s mother’s succumbing to burning injuries were all remained uncontroverted by the other sides participating in the hearing. Therefore, the veracity of the incident cannot be put to question. The OP No. 4, being the mechanic sent by the OP No. 2 responding to the telephonic complaint of the complainant, although received injury but failed to establish his competence to address the complaint in the gas cylinder. He, rather worsened the situation which caused the fire leading to the death of the mother of the complainant and reaching injuries to himself and the sister of the Complainant. The prompt respond to the call by the OP no. 2 was marred by the unskillful and unprofessional approach of the OP No. 4, the mechanic, which claimed one invaluable life apart from the injuries reached to the persons mentioned above. The deficiency of a lackadaisical approach of the OP No. 2 to take up the issue in right earnest cannot be totally ruled out in the circumstances narrated above. We, therefore, fix a liability of paying Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased mother and sister of the Complainant by the OP No. 2.
We had gone through the report at running page 17 which was more a depiction of the incident which we had already narrated hereinbefore and was having hardly any impression about the cause that led to the catastrophe. It was not possible also because the accidental fire had broken out, probably due to mishandling of the cylinder, immediately after taking up the job and the handler himself became one of the victims of injury. There was, therefore, a reason to suspect that the cylinder itself was having some defects. The defect in the LPG bottling at the plant point cannot be ruled out. This indicated that deficiency was there on the part of the OP No. 1 also. We, accordingly, think it fit to direct the OP No.1 to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased mother and sister of the Complainant.
We rely on the decision passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in First Appeal No. 455 of 2015 [Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.—Vs—Ms Khushi & ors] supra and intend to direct that the OP No. 3 to pay a compensation of Rs. 10, 00,000/-to the legal heirs of the deceased mother of the Complainant based on the same analogy as the Hon’ble National Commission has taken in the above case of like nature and character explaining the reason therefor. No treatment cost, however was considered permissible for payment in absence of relevant documents in support of such cost incurred by the Complainant.
We, however, do not consider the fire incident as the proximate cause of the death of the sister of the Complainant as she died on expiry of one year three months and thirteen days since the date of incident. We, however, are convinced that she had to undergo a long treatment for the injuries she sustained from the fire. Some of the prescriptions available with the record appeared to be related to neuropsychiatric problem. It further appeared that the said prescriptions were all related to the treatments she had undergone after the incident of fire. There was, therefore, likelihood that the neuropsychiatric problem developed after the subject fire incident which not only reached injury to her but also claimed the life of her mother. The OP No. 3 committed a further deficiency by not taking prompt action for settling the claim which they should have done in the interest of the consumers. Taking into consideration all aspects narrated hereinabove, we are convinced that the legal heirs of the deceased sister of the complainant are entitled to get a further compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the OP No. 3 and the cost for treatment of Rs. 9,654/-shown to have been paid for her treatment at running page 29.
Further, we intend to direct the OP Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to pay Rs. 3,000/-each as litigation costs to the legal heirs of the deceased mother and sister of the Complainant.
Hence, ordered that the case be and the same is allowed in part with litigation cost of Rs. 3,000/- each to be paid by the OP Nos. 1 to 3 to the legal heirs of the Complainant.
We further direct the OP Nos 1, 2 and 3 to pay compensations to the tunes of Rs. 1,00,000/-,Rs. 50,000/-and Rs. 12,00,000/-respectively to the legal heirs of the deceased mother and sister of the Complainant.
Op No. 3 is directed once again to pay Rs. 9,654/-as treatment cost of the deceased sister of the Complainant to the legal heirs of the said deceased sister.
Entire order has to be carried out within a period of 45 days from the date of the instant order, failing which, simple interest @ 9% per annum shall accrue to Rs. 1,00,000/-,50,000/-and 12,09,654/-being the payable amounts minus litigation cost in respect of OP Nos 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
