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.38/2014
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
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
(By Adv. K. Raju) 2. Sreekumar Agencies, Distributors of Indane Cooking Gas, Haripad P.O.
Alappuzha District – 690 514
(By Adv. B. Sivadas)
3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
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 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 complainant was 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 complainant was cooking in the gas stove, the fire spread due to leakage of gas through the regulator. The complainant and his wife sustained severe burn injuries and they were admitted at Medical College Hospital, Vandanam immediately after the incident and thereafter they were shifted to Medical Centre, Ernakulam on 2.7.2013 but unfortunately his wife died on 4.7.2013. The complainant was treated there till 5.8.2013 and had spent Rs.5 lakhs towards treatment. After that he was compelled to take the assistance of a nurse until the wounds are get healed. The complainant sustained 32% burn injuries. Due to accident he was completely disabled and is not capable of doing his personal needs by his own. Thrikkunnappuzha police registered a crime No.378/13 under section 174 of Cr. P.C. The incident happened due to the latches and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2. The complainant claimed a compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs towards personal injuries, mental agony and property damages. The third opposite party United India Insurance Co. is the insurer of the first and second opposite parties. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are liable for the accident and third opposite party is liable to indemnify the insurer. Hence the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable for the accident.
2. Notice was served to the first opposite party, but not filed any version subsequently first opposite party was set ex-parte. Second opposite party was appeared before the Forum and filed version. Notice against the third opposite party was not returned. But the notice to the 3rd opposite party united India insurance company was served in the connected case CC/39/2014.
3. The version of the second opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is true that the second opposite party engaged in the distribution of cooking gas cylinders manufactured by the first opposite party to customers. It is also true that the complainant is a customer of the first opposite party through this 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 distribute 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 this second opposite party. Hence the 2nd opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint.
4. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents Exts.A1 to A16 were marked. Sri. Reghunadh, A.S.I., Thrikkunnappuzha examined as CW1 and documents Exts.C1, C1(a) and C1(b) were marked on 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 Nos.1 and 2:- 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 in the gas stove on 1.7.2013 at about 8 p.m. Due to leakage of regulator, fire spread and the complainant and his wife sustained burn injuries and were immediately admitted at Medical College Hospital, Vandanam. On 2.7.2013 both of them were shifted to Medical Centre, Ernakulam and the complainant was treated there till 5.8.2013. The complainant sustained 32% burn injuries and is incapable of doing his personal needs by his own. Also he was unable to continue his earlier business which is his only source of income and sustained much mental agony and financial loss. According to the complainant, the accident happened solely due to the deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the first and 2nd opposite party who have supplied inferior quality goods and thereby committed deficiency in service and as a result the accident took place. Hence filed this complaint seeking compensation.
8. The complainant produced 16 documents. Ext.A1 is the copy of FIR, Ext.A2 is the discharge summary, Ext.A3 is the copy of gas connection voucher issued by opposite parties 1 and 2, Ext.A4 is the copy of customer book, Ext.A5 is the copy of legal notice dated 6.11.2013, Ext.A6 is the legal notice dated 12.11.2013, Ext.A7 is the reply notice issued by the second opposite party, Ext.A8 is the copy of reply notice issued by the first opposite party, Ext.A9 series are the medical bills, Ext.A10 series are the canteen bills, Ext.A11 series are the receipts for the payment given to the Nurse, Ext.A12 is the Taxi bills, Ext.A13 is the IP final bill and Ext.A14 is the copy of paper publication. Ext.A15 is the letter dated 24.10.2013 Ext,A16 is the paper publication. Ext.C1 is the certified copy of FIR, Ext.C1(a) and C1(b) are the interim reports filed by the S.I. of Police, Thrikkunnappuzha on 28.5.2015 and on 3.2.15 respectively.
9. From the documents Exts.A3 and A4 it is clear that the complainant is a consumer of the LPG supplied by the first opposite party through their dealer second opposite party from 21.8.2000. 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 to lit the stove again, when the lighter was lit the fire started spreading. The complainant who was also there in the kitchen and his wife was caught by the fire and sustained severe burn injuries and his wife expired on 4.7.2013 at Ernakulam Medical Centre Hospital and the complainant sustained severe burn injuries. The FIR was prepared on the basis of the information given by one Mr. Promod who is a relative of the complainant. It is pertinent to note that the said Pramod was not residing in the house of the complainant. So he is not the eye witness of the incident. So he has no direct information regarding the incident, but from the deposition of PW1 who witnessed the incident deposed that the fire accident occurred due to the leakage of gas through the regulator which was supplied by the opposite parties 1 and 2. From the hospital records it is clear that the complainant sustained 32% burn injuries and now the complainant is incapable of doing any work and thereby lost his source of income. As per Ext.A2 the complainant was admitted in the Medical Centre hospital on 2.7.2013 for accidental burn due to cooking gas leak and the complainant sustained 32% burn injuries over posterior trunk both upper and lower limbs. He was discharged on 5.8.2013. We notice that the complainant sustained severe burns over posterior trunk both upper and lower limbs and was suffered severe pain during the course of the treatment. As per Exts.A9 to A13, it can be seen that the complainant has incurred a total expense of Rs.4,28,728/-. So he is entitled to get the medical expenses incurred by him. Ext.C1, C1(a) and C1(b) submitted by the A.S.I., Thrukkunnapuzha Police Station. 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. According to the complainant the incident happened due to the leakage of the regulator supplied by the first opposite party. As per the deposition of PW1, “the cause of the mishap is the leakage of gas through the regulator supplied by the first opposite party. Second opposite party is bound to maintain the regulator properly.” Furthermore there is no evidence to indicate that the second opposite party properly maintained the regulator. Thereafter the complainant issued legal notice to the opposite parties 1 and 2. It is clear from the documents 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. Therefore, the opposite parties 1 and 2 would be liable to compensate the complainant. In the reply notice given by the opposite parties they stated that they have valid insurance with the third opposite party. If they have a valid insurance with the third opposite party is liable to indemnify the insurer. In Ext.C1(a) it is stated that the regulator has been sent to the Forensic Lab, Thiruvananthapuram, but the report was not yet received. From the available documents it is clear that the reason for the fire accident was leakage of gas. The second opposite party stated that, the 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 by the Police Officials. 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 complainant and Ext.A1, Ext.C1, C1(a) and C1(b). Perusing Ext.A1 and hearing the complainant, it is affirmed that, the accident occurred due to the leakage in the regulator. According to the complainant, while his wife 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 averred that, they have a valid insurance with the third opposite party at the time of accident. If they have a valid insurance with the 3rd opposite party they are liable to indemnify the insurer. 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. In the foregoing discussions, we are of opinion that the complainant is entitled to get compensation towards the injuries sustained, mental agony and severe pain suffered consequent to the burns and also considering his inability to do his earlier work which is the only source of income to earn his livelihood. Therefore the complaint is to be compensated. So the complaint is to be allowed.
In the result, the opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs) towards compensation to the complainant. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount to the complainant. If they have a valid insurance with the 3rd opposite party they could indemnify the liability of the opposite parties 1 and 2. The opposite parties also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within 30 days 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 - Discharge summary
Ext.A3 - Copy of gas connection voucher issued by opposite parties 1 and 2
Ext.A4 - Copy of customer book
Ext.A5 - Copy of legal notice dated 6.11.2013
Ext.A6 - Copy of legal notice dated 12.11.2013
Ext.A7 - Copy of reply notice issued by the second opposite party
Ext.A8 - Copy of reply notice issued by the first opposite party
Ext.A9 series - Medical bills
Ext.A10 series - Canteen bills
Ext.A11 series - Receipts for the payment given to the Nurse
Ext.A12 - Taxi bills
Ext.A13 - IP final bill
Ext.A14 - Copy of paper publication
Ext.A15 - Copy of the letter dated 24.10.2013 (Connected case in CC/39/2014)
Ext.A16 - Paper publication in Mathrubhoomi daily dated 5.7.2013 ( “ )
CW1 - Reghunadh. C. (Court Witness)
Ext.C1 - Certified copy of FIR
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
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
