PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      The main question which falls for consideration is whether the Komalavally, Proprietor, Venkiteshware Gas Agency, Thrissur and Territory Manager, Bottling Plant & Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Peelamedu, Opposite Parties-1 & 2,  Gas Company- Opposite Party No. 3 and Insurance Company- Opposite Party No. 4 are liable for negligence due to bursting and explosion of gas cylinder.  Mr. Philip, the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,78,395/- for loss of goods and for treatment of his wife, who after watching the above said occurrence fell down unconscious. 

2.      This is an admitted fact that the complainant had taken gas cylinder and Rubber Tube on 24.08.2001 from the Ist OP.  The said gas cylinder burner was put on 12.09.2001 around 11.00 A.M. by the wife of the petitioner.  Thereafter, she went to a well to bring water leaving the burning gas cylinder behind her.  In the meantime, the gas burst out damaging the articles belonging to the complainant.  The wife of the petitioner came back.  She saw the said situation and fell down unconscious.  She was admitted in the hospital and heavy expenditure was incurred.  The allegation of the petitioner is that OP-2 had filled the gas at high pressure, which could not be tolerated by the cylinder.  It was alleged that due to the negligence of the OP-2 by delivering such a gas cylinder the incident took place. 

3.      The District Forum vide its order dated 05.07.2011, accepted the complaint and directed the OPs 1-3 to pay Rs. 1,20,000/- for the loss incurred to the house, Rs. 44,438/- for the loss of household articles and utensils, Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered with costs of Rs. 1,000/-.

4.          Aggrieved by that order, OP-4 the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. preferred an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission accepted the appeal and dismissed the complaint. 

5.      We have heard the counsel for the parties.  The counsel for the petitioner stressed that the incident took place because the gas was filled at high pressure which could not be tolerated by the cylinder and it burst out.  He further submits that the story regarding collection of rubbers is made out of whole cloth.  He draws our attention towards the report made by the police which runs as follows:-

“No. 246/PTN/12/2001

CERTIFICATE

As one Philip, S/o Pyngottu Kunnel Poulose, residing at House No. XIII/425, Pazhayannur Panchayat filed complaint which was numbered at 246/PTN/12/2001 in the Pazhayannur Police Station stating that his house suffered fire accident pursuant to a gas cylinder explosion and sustained damages, an enquiry was conducted at the accident spot and the complaint is found correct and the roof beams are found burnt, tiles and walls are found destroyed, gas cylinder was found exploded and the domestic equipments in the kitchen are found damaged beyond salvage.  On enquiry, fire has spread somehow from the kitchen and the neighbors had heard the explosion of the gas cylinder and as the wife of the complainant was outside the

house, no accident to any persons had occurred and no cases are in Pazhayannur Police station regarding the above matter.

Seal of Pazhayannur Police Station

                                   (Signature)

                         SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

                         PAZHAYANNUR-68058..

                          (Designation Seal)”

6.      The last submission made by the counsel for the complainant is that the order was signed by one member Sh. K. Chandradas  Nadar, who is a judicial member. 

7.      All these arguments lack conviction.  It is not clear as to what is the cause of the said fire.  The submission made by the complainant that it was filled to the brink and gave high pressure pales into insignificant because the cylinder was obtained on 24.08.2001 and explosion took place on 12.09.2001.  There is a huge delay. After about 18 days, the pressure must have gone down.  This theory does not work at all.  Secondly, after turning the burner on, the wife of the petitioner had gone out to fetch a bucket of water.  It clearly shows negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the wife of the petitioner.  She could not tell what is the cause of the fire. 

It is also clear as observed by the State Commission “the question that arises for consideration whether that the fire burst due to the negligent filling of the gas cylinder with LPG under high pressure or that the gas cylinder was so weak that it could not sustain the pressure with which LPG was filled in it  as alleged or whether it was the negligence of the OP for the burst of the gas cylinder.  It is also pertinent to notice that the Sub Inspector of Police, Pazhayannur had enquired into the matter. Ext.P2 certificate issued by him is to the effect that on enquiry it was revealed that somehow fire spread from the kitchen and the gas cylinder exploded.  The sequence of events is that fire spread first and then the explosion happened not vice versa.  So it is quite obvious that the negligence attributed to the opposite parties is not established even on balance of probabilities.” 

6.      No ground. Dismissed.