IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 30th day of April, 2016
Filed on 12.02.2014
Present
1) Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2) Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3) Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.39/2014
Between
Complainants:- Opposite parties:-
1. Sri. Sarngadharan. R. 1. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Sindhu Bhavanam Indane Area Office, L.P.G. Section
Mahadevikadu P.O. Panampilly Nagar P.O.
Karthikappally Cochin – 682 026
Alappuzha District
2. Sreekumar Agencies, Distributors of Indane Cooking Gas, Haripad P.O.
2. Smt. Sindhu, D/o Shyamala Alappuzha District – 690 514
-do- (By Adv. B. Sivadas)
3. Smt. Smitha.S., D/o Shyamala 3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
(By Adv. K. Raju – for complainants) Divisional Office No. 17, 226
Canada Building, First Floor
Dr. D.N. Road, Fort
Mumbai – 400 001
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant in short is as follows:-
The first complainant had availed LPG connection for domestic purpose from the first opposite party Indian Oil Corporation through the distributor the second opposite party Sreekumar Agencies. It is alleged that the complainants were availing cylinders from 21.08.2000 and using the same for domestic purpose. While so on 1.7.2013 at about 8 p.m., when the wife of the first complainant was cooking in the gas stove, the fire spread due to leakage of regulator. The first complainant and his wife sustained severe burn injuries and they were admitted at Medical College Hospital, Vandanam immediately after the incident and thereafter on 2.7.2013 they were shifted to Medical Centre, Ernakulam. But on 4.7.2013 the wife of the first complainant died due to the burn injuries. So the accident happened solely due to the deficiency in service and negligence of the first opposite party who have supplied goods of inferior quality and thereby their service in this field is deficient and as a result the incident took place. Hence opposite parties 1 and 2 are directly liable for the accident and the 3rd opposite party is also liable to indemnify the insurer for their loss. Hence opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable for the accident. At the time of death the deceased was a healthy, energetic and enthusiastic woman with good physique of 60 years old only. If the accident would not happen she would have lived at least for another 20 to 30 years. The accident was purely due to the leakage of the regulator attached to the equipment which supplied by the distributor having insurance coverage. The same was of inferior quality and deficient. The first complainant issued legal notice to opposite parties 1 and 2. But in vain. Hence the husband and their issues filed this complaint seeking a compensation of Rs.20 lakhs.
2. Notices were served to the opposite parties. The second opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version. As the opposite parties 1 and 3 did not file any version, they set ex-parte.
3. The version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is true that the second opposite party is a distributor of cooking gas cylinders manufactured by the first opposite party to customers. It is also true that the complainant is such a customer of the first opposite party through the second opposite party. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party towards the complainant or anybody else and hence the complainant has got no cause of action against this second opposite party. It may also be noted that the gas cylinders are manufactured by the first opposite party and the complainant is directly a customer of the first opposite party and this second opposite party is functioning only as a distributor who distributes the cylinders manufactured by the first opposite party to the customers of the first opposite party. The amount as the expenses incurred and the amount claimed as compensation are exorbitant and neither this second opposite party is liable to pay any amount to the complainant nor the complainant is entitled to get any reliefs from the second opposite party. Hence the 2nd opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint.
4. The evidence consists of the chief and proof affidavit of the first complainant and Exts.A1 to A16 were marked on their part, the oral testimony of the 1st complainant as PW1 and Ext.C1, Ext.C1(a) and C1 (b) were marked in CC/38/2014 as court Exhibits.
6. Considering the allegations of the complainant and the contentions of the second opposite party the Forum has raised the following issues:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite
parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief sought for?
7. Point No.1:- The case of the complainant is that the complainant is a consumer of LPG for domestic purpose supplied by the first opposite party through their distributor second opposite party from 21.8.2000. A fire accident occurred while the wife of the complainant was cooking in the kitchen on 1.7.2013 at about 8 p.m. Due to the leakage of regulator, fire spread and the complainant and his wife sustained burn injuries and they were immediately admitted at Medical College Hospital, Vandanam. On 2.7.2013 they were shifted to Medical Centre, Ernakulam. But on 4.7.2013 the wife of the first complainant died due to the burn injuries. According to the complainants, the accident happened solely due to the deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the first opposite party who have supplied inferior quality goods and thereby their service in this field is deficient and as a result, the accident took place. Hence filed this complaint seeking compensation.
8. The 1st complainant was examined as PW1 and 16 documents were marked. Ext.A1 is the copy of FIR, Ext.A2 is the original postmortem report, Ext.A3 is the treatment cum death certificate. Ext.A4 is the receipt of ambulance charge dated 04.07.2013, Ext.A5 is the IP final bill, Ext.A6 series are medical cash bills, Ext.A7 is the copy of gas connection voucher dated 21.08.2000, Ext.A8 is the copy of the customer book, Ext.A9 is the paper publication of Kerala Kaumudi daily dated 05.07.2013, Ext.A10 is copy of legal notice issued to the second opposite party, Ext.A11 is the copy of legal notice issued to the first opposite party, Ext.A12 is the reply notice given by the second opposite party, Ext.A13 is the reply notice given by the first opposite party, Ext.A14 is the copy of the death certificate of the deceased, Ext.A15 is the copy of letter dated 24.10.2013 and Ext.A16 is the copy of paper publication of Mathrubhumi daily dated 05.07.2013.
9. From Ext.A1 copy of FIR it is clear that a fire accident occurred while the wife of the complainant was cooking in the kitchen on 1.7.2013 at about 8 p.m. As per the FIR ( ie. Ext.A1 and Ext.C1) on 1.7.2013 at about 8 p.m. while the complainant’s wife Syamala while cooking, the stove abruptly went off and she tried to lit the stove again, when the lighter was lit the fire started spreading. The first complainant who was also there in the kitchen with his wife was also caught the fire and sustained severe burn injuries. Though, they were rushed to the hospital immediately but wife expired on 4.7.2013 at Ernakulam Medical Centre Hospital. From Ext.A2 & Ext.A3 it is clear that the burning injuries were the cause of death of the deceased Syamala. Ext.C1, C1 (a) and C1 (b) submitted by the A.S.I., Thrukkunnapuzha Police Station before the Forum. As per Ext.C1 report, the incident occurred on 1.7.2013 at 8 p.m. The reason for the accident was due to the fire spread from the gas stove. It is apparent from the documents Exts.C1, C1(a) and (b) the accident occurred due to the leakage of gas. According to the complainants the incident happened due to the leakage of the regulator supplied by the first opposite party. Thereafter the complainant issued legal notice to the opposite parties 1 and 2. The opposite parties in their reply notice stated they have a valid insurance with the third opposite party at the time of the accident. The complainants claimed for a total compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs from the
opposite parties. At the time of the untimely death of the deceased Syamala was 61 years old and was assisting her husband in the coir business. The second opposite party stated that, the first complainant is a customer of the first opposite party through the second opposite party. So there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the second opposite party. But this contention cannot be considered as the gas cylinders and the regulator and components were supplied by the second opposite party. The second opposite party is the distributor of the first opposite party. All booking formalities and supply are dealt with the second opposite party. They cannot absolve of their liability.
10. According to the complainants, the mishap was happened only due to negligence of the first and second opposite party in issuing inferior quality of regulator and it’s components. But, the regulator is not produced before the Forum. From the records, it is known that the regulator was sent for testing its efficiency, capacity and quality in the forensic lab. But, they had not returned it and the test results were not yet come. Therefore, the Forum cannot stick on to that point. But in the same time, we are taking in to consideration of the oral testimony of the first complainant and Ext.A1, Ext.C1, C1(a) and C1(b). Perusing Ext.A1 and hearing the first complainant, it is affirmed that, the accident occurred due to the leakage in the regulator. According to the first complainant, the deceased was cooking in the gas stove. Unexpectedly the fire spread due to the leakage of gas through the regulator. In a normal parlance this would not happen. So, we are of the view that, the regulator is of inferior quality. There is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the first and second opposite parties in supplying inferior quality components. The opposite parties 1 and 2 in their reply notice averred that, they have a valid insurance with the third opposite party at the time of accident. We do not know whether the 1st and 2nd opposite parties intimated the matter to the 3rd opposite party in time or not. But it is noted that, no authorized insurance surveyor had visited the place of occurrence. The 2nd opposite party also failed to produce the survey report before the Forum. The complainant has made a specific pleading that the regulator and other accessories were of inferior quality and only because of that the incident took place. It is clear from the documents that the accident occurred due to the leakage of gas, so there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2. Thereafter the complainants is to be compensated.
11. In the instant case, the deceased had to suffer pain and sufferings consequent to the burn injuries from 1.7.2013 to 4.7.2013. The complainants had to expend Rs.30,000/- for treating the deceased. The medical bills are produced before the Forum (Exts.A3, A4 and A5). The complainants are entitled to get the medical expenses which the complainants had to pay. They claimed an amount of Rs.2 lakhs for the damages caused t the building, furniture and materials in the kitchen due to fire. But no documents were produced to prove the same. The loss caused to the complainants cannot be quantified in terms of money. However, a sum of Rs.8 lakhs is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. For the above discussions, we found that there is negligence on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2, so they are liable to compensate the complainants. Therefore the complaint is allowed in part.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only) to the complainants. The opposite parties 1 an 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount to the complainants, if they have valid insurance with the 3rd opposite party they could indemnify the liability of the opposite parties 1 and 2. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the award amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order till realization.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of April, 2016.
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sarngadharan (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of FIR
Ext.A2 - Original postmortem report
Ext.A3 - Copy of treatment cum death certificate
Ext.A4 - Receipt of ambulance charge dated 04.07
Ext.A5 - IP final bill
Ext.A6 series - Medical cash bills
Ext.A7 - Copy of gas connection voucher dated 21.08.2000
Ext.A8 - Copy of the customer book
Ext.A9 - Paper publication of Kerala Kaumudi daily dated 05.07.2013
Ext.A10 - Copy of legal notice issued to the second opposite party
Ext.A11 - Copy of legal notice issued to the first opposite party
Ext.A12 - Reply notice given by the second opposite party
Ext.A13 - Reply notice given by the first opposite party
Ext.A14 - Copy of the death certificate of the deceased,
Ext.A15 - Copy of letter dated 24.10.2013
Ext.A16 - Copy of paper publication of Mathrubhumi daily dated 05.07.2013
Ext.C1 - Certified copy of FIR (connected case in CC/38/14)
Ext.C1(a) - Interim report filed by the S.I. of Police,
Thrikkunnappuzha on 28.5.2015 ( “ )
Ext.C1(b) - interim report filed on 3.2.15 ( “ )
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
