West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/194/2017

Sri Gopal Shau - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mrs. Sibdas Indane - Opp.Party(s)

Asim Kumar Dutta

25 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                                                                                 Bibekananda Pramanik,President.

                                                                                                          and

   Pulak Kumar Singha,Member.

Sagarika Sarkar, Member. 

 

Complaint Case No.194/2017

Sri Gopal Shau S/o-Ganesh Shau of  Vill.& P.O.Manoharpur, P.S.Chandrakona,Dist.Paschim Medinipur,Pin-721232.

………..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

1.Mrs.Sibdas Indane, Prop.Manas Kumar Adhikary,at Bamaria,Ward No.5,P.O.Khirpai,P.S.Chandrakona,Dist.Paschim Medinipur,  Pin-721232.

2.Branch Manager,Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,M idnapore Branch Office,at Kshudiramnagar,Post Office Road, P.O.Midnapore, Dist.Paschim Medinipur,Pin-721101.

3.The Area Manager (M.D.),Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,Red Cross Road, City Centre,P.O.Durgapur,Dist.Burdwan,Pin-723216.

4.I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited ,

Lombard House,Dutta Plaza,(Old Tata Press Building),Veer Savarkar Marg,Prabhadevi(W),Mumbai-400025. 

                                                                                  ......……….….Opp. Parties..                                                                                                                                       

 

              For the Complainant: Mr. Asim Kumar Dutta, Advocate.

            For the O.P.             : Mr. Mohanlal Das Kanungo & Tapas Adhya, Advocate.

                                                 

                                                        

                                                                                               Date of filing:01 /12/2017

    Decided on: - 25 /06/2018

 

                                                                                    Contd………P/(2).

 

 

-2-

Pulak Kumar Singha, Member –Complainant files this case u/s 12 of C.P. Act.

               In brief the case of the complainant is that complainant is a  consumer of domestic cooking gas under O.P.No.1. On 01.03.2017 at about 9.00 p.m. while wife of complainant tried to fire the gas oven then due to gas lickage from regulator suddenly caught fire and wife of complainant sustained burn injury and she was treated in the Nursing Home at Ghatal, thereafter at Mechogram, Purba Medinipur and lastly treated at Midnapore Medical College & Hospital where she died. Police Case was started and post mortem was held upon the dead body.

            Complainant lodged complain with required documents to the O.Ps. and O.Ps. investigator investigated the incident place and also asking some queries but claim was not settled then complainant knocked the doors of O.Ps. On 07.9.2017 O.P.No.3 sent one demand draft of Rs.6,00,000/- through O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.1 was handed over the said amount to the complainant. As per L.P.G. dealer package schedule, public liability Rs.10,00,000/- and as such O.P.No.3 willfully withheld Rs.4,00,000/- as per condition of the policy, Complainant appeared before this Forum for getting redressal as per prayer of complaint.

            O.P.No.1 contested the case by filing Written Objection denying the allegations of complainant stating inter alia, that the petition is not legally maintainable. After getting intimation of burn injury and died thereafter this O.P. intimated the matter to O.P.No.2 & 3 and after investigation by the O.P.-Insurance Co. paid Rs.6,00,000/- as per  terms of policy, this O.P. prays for dismissal of complaint.                    

             O.P.No.2 contested the case by filing written objection stating inter alia, that this complaint is not legally maintainable. As per policy condition this O.P. is liable to pay compensation while carrying the gas cylinder from dealers premises to the customers premises or at the time of installation any accident occurred not exceeding in all compensation and litigation expenses the limit of Rs.10,00,000/- and a series of accident within the policy period accident arises from any event liability Rs.40,00,000/-. As per policy condition this O.P. has no liability to pay any compensation. This O.P. prays for dismissal of the case.

            Inspite of service of summon upon o.p.no.3 did not contest the case as such the case is heard ex-parte against O.P.no.3.

           O.P.No.4 contested the case by filing written objection denying the allegations of complainant, stating inter alia that the complaint case is not maintainable, as per policy condition under personal accident with fixed liability amounting Rs.6,00,000/- in case of death of any policy holder which is reflected in the policy schedule. The complainant finally received full compensation, this O.P.has no deficiency in service. This O.P. pray for dismissal of complaint.

                                                       Decision with reasons

We travelled over the complaint, written objections, evidences and documents. Admitted fact that complainant is a consumer of O.P.no.1 and his wife was burnt at the time of lighting gas

                                                                                                                                                     Contd…….P/(3).

 

 

                                                                                                                               -3-

oven for cooking and after  medical treatment she succumbed injury and died at Midnapore Medical College & Hospital. From the documents and evidences it reveals that  O.P.no.1 is the distributor of Indane Gas ,O.P.no.2 is the insurer of O.P.no.1, O.P.no.3 is the supplier of gas cylinder to the

distributor and O.P.no.4 is the insurer of O.P.no.3. For accidental death due to leakage of gas O.P.no.4  paid compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- but complainant claimed Rs.10,00,000/- and for this disputes this case has arise before the Forum.

Complainant to prove his case adduced evidence by filing examination-in-chief and submitted some documents and he was cross examined by the O.Ps. Complainant admitted that he has received Rs.6,00,000/- from O.P.no.4. O.P.No.1 and 2 also adduced evidence on their behalf and witnesses are cross examined by complainant. In cross examination by the complainant O.P.no.1 stated that complainant booked the gas cylinder on 09.02.2017 and the cylinder was delivered on 11.02.2017 and the accident occurred on 01.03.2017.

From (Exibit-D) the terms and conditions of the policy SECTION-VI-Public liability it is mentioned that “ accidental damage to property caused by or arising from installation of gas filled liquefied petroleum 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 Insured’s customer……….not exceeding in all for the compensation and litigation expenses the limit of Rs.10,00,000/- for any one accident but in the instance case gas cylinder was supplied on 11.9.2017 and incident occurred on 01.3.2017 as such as per policy condition of O.P.no.2, no such incident occurred either at the time of installation of gas cylinder or at the time carrying to the customer  premises. So, the  O.P.No.2  has no liability to pay compensation as per terms of policy condition.

O.P.No.4 is the insurer of O.P.no.3 i.e. Indian Oil Corporation. It reveals from (exibit-E) the policy documents of O.P.no.4, as per schedule Section-II:- Personal accident cover to third parties and customers and property damage at authorized customer’s registered premises (a) personal accident for:- 6  Lakhs per person per accident. In the instance case O.P.no.4 paid Rs.6,00,000/- to the complainant through O.P.no.1 and complainant also admitted it in evidence. As such as per policy condition of O.P.no.4 complainant is not entitled Rs.10,00,000/- as per his claim. Insurance Policy is under contractual liability and obligation and none can go behind it.

O.P.No.3 did not contest the case as such the case against O.P.no.3 is heard ex-parte.

In view of the discussions hereinabove we have gone through the both O.Ps. insurance policy conditions and it appears that there is no negligent or deficiency in service on the part of O.P.Nos.2,3 & 4 and O.P.no.1 is the distributor of the O.P.no.3 whose liability is covered under the Insurance policy by O.P.no.2.

Under such circumstances, we think that complainant is not entitled to any further amount

besides paid amount of Rs.6,00,000/- by O.P.no.4 and as such complainant is not entitled to get any

order or redressal  from this Forum.                                                                                                     Contd…….P/(4).

.

 

                                                                                                               -4-

 

Thus the complaint case fails.

 

                                                Hence, it is,

                                                                        ORDERED

             that the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against O.P.nos.1,2 and 4 and ex-parte against O.P.no.3 without cost.

                     Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

                 Dictated & corrected by me.                 

 

                          

                                Member                                         Member                                      President

                                                                                                                                     District Forum

                                                                                                                                  Paschim Medinipur