IA/3600/2014 & IA/3603/2014 (C/delay)

These are the applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petitions by M/s Arjun Gas Service. Though the delay is very substantial, considering that the delay in filing of the revision petition by Indian Oil Corporation has already been condoned by this Commission and the matters have otherwise to be heard on merits, the delay on the part of the petitioner in filing these revision petitions is condoned subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- as cost in each revision petition. The cost will be paid within six weeks, failing which the revision petitions shall stand dismissed without any further orders.

REVISION PETITIONS

2.      The complainants in RP/4174/2011, RP/678/2012, RP/857/2013 & RP/2330/2014 were the LPG consumers of Indian Oil Corporation they having taken LPG connection from OP-2 M/s Arjun Gas Service. On 29.6.2007, since the flames coming out of the hot plate burner are rather slow, the complainant allegedly made a complaint to OP-2 M/s Arjun Gas Service and requested them to send a mechanic. At about 5.00-5.30  p.m., OP-1 a mechanic came to the premises of the complainants to repair the hot plate. The case of the complainants is that while working in their premises, OP-1 struck his screw driver against the rubber pipe through which LPG was being supplied from the cylinder to the hot plate. As a result, late Smt. Sushilaben  caught fire. One Ms. Freya, who was a guest to their house tried, tried to come to her rescue but she also got burnt. Smt. Sushilaben  succumbed to the burn injuries on 19.7.2007. Freya was also treated in a clinic for about 10 days and thereafter she was treated as an outdoor patient. The complainants thereafter approached the concerned District Forum by way of  consumer complaints impleading M/s Arjun Gas Service, Pranjal Indane,  Indian Oil Corporation, the mechanic who had come to repair the hot plate, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. from which the insurance policy had been taken by  Indian Oil Corporation and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. from which the insurance policy had been taken by M/s Arjun Gas Service.

3.      The complaints were resisted by the opposite parties. The mechanic claimed that he was a hot plate repairer and when he went to the premises of the complainants, he found that a PVC pipe had been installed from the cylinder to the hot plate. M/s Arjun Gas Service filed their written version claiming that an unauthorised person had been engaged  by the complainants for repair of the hot plate and he was responsible for the accident. M/s Pranjal Indane contested the complaint on the ground that they were not connected with supply of LPG to the complainants and  had no connection with the matter. The insurers also disputed any liability  on their part. The Indian Oil Corporation also contested the consumer complaint.

4.      The District Forum vide its order dated 30.3.2009, dismissed the consumer complaints. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the complainants approached the concerned State Commission by way of two appeals. The State Commission vide impugned order dated 29.8.2011 directed as under:-

“ 2. The opponent No.2, 4, 5 and 6 are directed to pay jointly and severally Rs.4,90,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Thousand) as compensation to original complainants of Appeal No.87 of 2010 with 9% interest from the date of complaint till realization. The opponent No.2, 4, 5 and 6 are also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) towards mental agony and another sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) towards the cost of the proceedings.

3. The opponents No.2, 4, 5 and 6 are directed to pay Rs.5,40,485/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Forty Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Five) to the original complaint of Appeal No.88 of 2010 jointly and severally with 9% interest from the date of complaint till realization. The opponents are also directed to pay Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) towards the cost of the proceedings.”

5.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioners are before this Commission by way of these revision petitions.

6.      As far as the liability of mechanic is concerned, the negligence on his part is clearly established he having worked negligently by striking the screw driver against the rubber pipe which was feeding LPG from the cylinder to the hot plate. Though he took the stand that a PVC pipe had been installed by the complainants, the plea taken by him could not be substantiated by evidence and in any case does not inspire confidence. If on reaching the premises of the complainants, he found the PVC pipe installed there, he ought to have come back instead of trying to repair the hot plate. That having not been done, the plea taken by him seems to be only an afterthought. Moreover, the LPG cylinder had been installed just 20 days ago and it is the standard practice to check the rubber pipe at the time of installing the cylinder. Had PVC pipe been installed by the complainants, the delivery man would have noted so and would have refused to supply the cylinder unless the PVC pipe was replaced by an appropriate rubber pipe. Therefore, OP-1 is liable to compensate the complainants.

7.      As far as M/s  Arjun Gas Service is concerned, there is no  credible evidence to prove that the mechanic was deputed by them to attend to the complaint of the consumers. Though it is alleged by the complainants that they had made a complaint to M/s Arjun Gas Service, it has been denied by the agency and more importantly even by the mechanic. Had he been deputed by M/s Arjun Gas Service, he would have certainly stated so in his written version and that would have made M/s Arjun Gas Service vicariously liable for the acts of negligence committed by him. Without any credible evidence, it cannot be accepted that the mechanic was deputed by M/s Arjun Gas Service. It would be pertinent to note here that according to the mechanic, he was sitting at an agency when the complainant came there and took him to his premises for the repair of the hot plate. The incident has happened after the office hours. Therefore, in all likelihood,  the mechanic was independently engaged by the complainants and was not deputed by M/s Arjun Gas Service. Therefore, M/s Arjun Gas Service, in my opinion, cannot be held liable. Consequently, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. which had issued an insurance policy in favour of M/s Arjun Gas Service will also not be liable.

8.      As far as M/s Pranjal Indane is concerned, they claim to be an independent LPG distributor of Indian Oil Corporation. There is no evidence of they having deputed the mechanic to the premises of the complainants. Even otherwise the case of the complainants is that they had made a complaint to M/s Arjun Gas Service and not to Pranjal Indane If the complaint was made to M/s Arjun Gas Service, there could be no reason for Pranjal Indane to depute the mechanic to the premises of the complainants. Neither M/s Pranjal Indane nor M/s Arjun Gas Service claims that the complaint was lodged with M/s Arjun Gas Service and they had requested Pranjal Indane to depute a mechanic to the premises of the complainants.

9.      Through in his written version, the mechanic has claimed that he was sitting atan agency when the complainants came over and took him to his place for repair of the hot plate  he does not  claim that it was Pranjal Indane who had deputed him to go to the premises of the complainants for repair of the hot plate. It has to be kept in mind that he had visited the premises of the complainants after regular office hours. Therefore, it would be difficult to say that it was Pranjal Indane who had deputed him to the premises of the complainants. In any case, as noted earlier this is not the case of the complainants that they had lodged a complaint with Pranjal Indane,  their case being that the complaint was lodged with M/s Arjun Gas Service and this is nobody’s case that M/s Arjun Gas Service had requested Pranjal Indane to depute a mechanic for attending to the complaint of the consumer. Even if the mechanic used to sit at Pranjal Indane, the agency will not be liable unless he was their employee and was deputed by them to attend to the complaint.

10.    Though it has come in the order of the District Forum that the mechanic had produced a receipt purporting to be issued on behalf of Pranjal Indane, no such receipt before this Commission  has been filed by any of the parties in any of these matters. Therefore, I am unable to examine any such receipt. More importantly, the receipt for the charges paid in an ordinary course would be issued after he has satisfactorily finished the work and not at the time when he enters to the premises of the consumer to attend  the complaint. Admittedly the repair work never came to be finished, an accident having occurred at the time when the mechanic was repairing the hot plate. Therefore, it is difficult to accept that a receipt was issued by the mechanic to the complainant. Another important aspect in this regard is that in the entire consumer complaint, there is absolutely no reference to any such receipt. Had the receipt been issued, it would have been an important document as far as the alleged liability of Pranjal Indane is concerned and, therefore, the complainant would not have  omitted to refer to that receipt in their consumer complaints. That having not been done, it would be difficult to accept that any such receipt was actually issued by the mechanic to the complainants, on the date this incident happened. Even if any such receipt was filed by the complainants before the District Forum, that would in all likelihood  be a document procured later on in connivance with the mechanic who would have more than willing to shift his financial liability to M/s Pranjal Indane. by proclaiming that he was  acting as an employee of Pranjal Indane while repairing the hot plate. Therefore, the liability of Pranjal Indane in my opinion does not stand proved.

11.    As far as   Indian Oil Corporation and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. are concerned, the liability of the insurer is clearly established from the insurance policy issued by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Indian Oil Corporation. As per Section 2 of the policy, personal accident cover to third parties was payable irrespective of liability at law, the cover being Rs.1 lakh  per person per event.  In addition to the aforesaid compensation, medical expenses upto Rs.15 lakhs per event and property damage upto Rs.50,000/- were payable besides property damage relief upto Rs.25000/-. The relevance clause of the insurance policy contained in Section 2 reads as under:-

“Section II

Personal Accident cover to third parties (irrespective of liability at law)

12.    Though the complainant must have incurred  expenditure on the treatment of late Smt. Sushilaben and on the treatment of Freya  unfortunately no evidence was produced by the complainant to prove the medical expenses incurred on the treatment of late Smt Sushilaben though they had produced the documents showing expenditure of more than Rs.40,000/- on the treatment of Freya, the complainants are entitled to the aforesaid amount from United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

13.    For the reasons stated hereinabove, the revision petitions are disposed of with the following directions:-

1. The mechanic, namely, Farashram Joraram Bishnoi will be liable to pay compensation quantified at Rs.5 lakhs to the legal heirs of late Smt. Sushilaben and Rs. 2 lakh to the complainant Ms. Freya

2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. shall be liable to pay Rs.1 lakh to the legal heirs of late Smt. Sushilaben and Rs.1 lakh to Ms. Freya besides Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as damage relief for the damage to his property on account of this incident. Thus the total liability of the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. would be Rs.2,25,000/-.

3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. shall also be liable to pay a sum of Rs.40495/- towards the medical expenses incurred on the treatment of Ms. Freya.

4. The consumer complaint stand dismissed against M/s Arjun Gas Service, Pranjal Indane and New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

5. The complainants shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. on the above-referred amount w.e.f. the date of institution of the consumer complaints.

6. The payment in terms of this order shall be made within three months from today.

7. The amount which the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. had deposited with this Commission shall be refunded to it alongwith interest which may have accrued on that amount.

8. After making payment to the complainants in terms of this order, the balance amount if any out of the amount payable by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. shall be refunded to the said company along with interest which may have accrued on that amount.