::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BIDAR::

         C.C. No.43/2021.

        CC.No.44/2021.

                                         Date of filing: 01.07.2021.

                                                              Date of disposal:30.01.2023.

P R E S E N Ts:-    

                                (1) Shri. Mabu Saheb H.Chabbi,                                                                                                               B.Com.,LL.B.,(Spl.),

                                                                              President.,  

                                (2) Kum. Kavita,

                                                               M.A.,LL.B.,(Spl.),  

                                                                         Member.

                                   (3) Shri.Thriyambakeshwara,

                                                                                   B.A.,LL.B.,(Spl.), 

                                                                                           Member.

COMPLAINANTS                      1.    Sareeta D/o Ganpathi (W/o Sudheer),

C.C. No.43/2021 &                              Age:23 years, Occ:Household,

CC.No.44/2021.                                   R/o Kumbarwada Bidar.

                                                     2.    Sangeeta D/o Ganpathi (W/o Basawaraj),

                                                            Age:28 years, Occ:Household,

                                                            R/o Navadgeri, Janwada Road,
                                                       Now residing at village Muchlamb,
                                                       Tq:Basavakalyan, Dist: Bidar.                                                                                                               

                                                    (By Sri.Bhadrashetty, Advocate.)                  

                 V/s

OPPONENT/S        1.  M/s Suata Gas Agency,
 C.C. No.43/2021 &                          Shop No.31, CMC Complex Udgir Road,  
 CC.No.44/2021.                              Bidar, Rep. by its proprietor.

                                                2.         The Branch Manager,

                                                       New India Assurance Company Ltd.  
                                                       Branch office, Padmaja Kunja Complex          

                                                       Above IDBI Bank, Udgir Road Bidar.                                                                          

                                                         (OP No.1 By.Sri.K.H.Patil, and
                                                     OP No.2 by Sri.Kalyanrao Patil, Advocate)

::  C O M M O N  J U D G M E N T  ::

By. Sri.Thriyambakeshwar, Member.

The complainants in both complaints approached this Commission by filing complaint U/sec 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the opponents alleging deficiency in service in not paying the compensation for the death of their parents and as per prayer of the complainant through application dated 30.01.2023, the main complaint being CCNo.43/2021 is clubbed with CC 44/2021.  Hence, passed the following common judgement.

The brief facts of the complaint in nut-shell are summarized as follows: -

2.         The complainants No.1 and 2 are the full sisters and daughters of Late Smt.Susilamma and Ganapathi R/o Nawadgiri Bidar.  The Late Ganapathi had a LPG domestic connection with No.SV. L006588 dated 25.08.2012 with the consumer No.606423 from OP No.1, who is the authorised dealer for HP Gas and OP No.2 is the insurer of OP No.1 having covered the loss of life & property while using the OP No.1 Gas.  It was on 03.08.2020, the OP No.1 supplied the LPG cylinder to the house of their parents.  On that day, the parents of the complainants and one child by name Omkar were present in the said house and by evening 19.45hrs. the mother of the complainants attempted to light the Gas for preparation of dinner.  At that time, all of sudden the LPG cylinder was burst and caught fire in the said house and there by caused grievous burnt injuries to mother & said child and in the meantime the father of complainants tried to save her, but in that efforts, he also grievously injured with burning injuries.  All the 3 persons were admitted to Government Hospital Bidar and during the course of treatment it was on 11.08.2020, at about 18.45hrs.  father succumbed to injuries and later their mother also succumbed to injuries on 12.09.2020, in Government Hospital Bidar, which was registered in UDR No. 9/2020 on the file of Market Police Station Bidar and after their inquest panchanama, subjected dead bodies for Post mortem examination and later handed over dead bodies to complainant family. The complainants further contended that, the said sudden burst of LPG Gas cylinder is only due to negligent installation and fitting in the house of parents of complainants, which is only due to negligent on the part of representative of OP No.1, who delivered and installed defective Gas cylinder. 

3.         The complainants based on the above incident, they put forth claim before OP No.1 who in turn said to have forwarded said claim to OP No.2 insurance company who covered the risk of OP No.1 customers’ life and property for using the LPG gas supplied by OP No.1.  The OP No.2 however said to have repudiated said claim of the complainants on 19.01.2021, by rejecting the claim of complainants on untenable and flimsy grounds which lead them to file the present complaint. 

written version of Ops

4.         The OP No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and the OP No.1 subsequent to filing of power, he did not file his W.V. and OP No. 2 only filed written version categorically by denying all most all the facts of the complaint by admitting the insurance coverage for OP No.1 premises and public liability as per Sec.VII of the “policy terms and conditions” issued to OP No.1,  and further contended that, On prima facie the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts as which are false and baseless as those things are not within his knowledge. The complainants are married daughters hence, not the legal heir/representative to the deceased and the relationship between deceased & complainants is denied for want of personal knowledge. The death of parents of complainants is admitted subject to the proof of legal documents.  However, the averments of Para NO.7 of the complaint are admitted by OP No.2 in his para No.10 of the W.V. in respect of the incident taken place due to the negligence on the part of OP No.1 who delivered and installed defective Gas Cylinder and further OP No.1 neglected to re-check the gas cylinder at the time of delivery and installation etc. as contended in the said para No.7 of complaint.  It is further admitted by OP No.2 that, he received claim form for compensation from complainants through OP No.1 and he repudiated said claim of complainant as not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy by relying on the scope of Sec. VII of the said policy and there by denied his deficiency in service on his part and prayed this commission to direct the complainants to approach Civil courts for damages as this claim is not ad-judicable by this Commission.  And hence among grounds, the OP No.2 contended that, he cannot be held liable for payment of any compensation as there is no coverage of insurance in between OP No.2 and complainants. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Evidence of complainant.

5.         The complainant No.1 lead, her evidence on her behalf and on behalf of complainant No.2 that is her sister as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.16 in CC.No.43/2021 and Ex.P.1&Ex.P.2 in CC No.44/2021 which are as follows,

Exhibits in CC.No.43/2021

1. Ex.P.1-True copy of UDR on the file of Market P.S.
2. Ex.P.2-True copy of complaint.
3. Ex.P.3-True copy of charge sheet.
4. Ex.P.4-True copy of Complainant No.2 supplementary statement.
5. Ex.P.5-True copy of Complainant No.1 supplementary statement.
6. Ex.P.6-True copy of supplementary statement of ASI Market P.S.
7. Ex.P.7-PME report of Ganapathi (father of complainants)
8. Ex.P.8-True copy of inquest panchanama.
9. Ex.P.9-True copy of repudiation letter.
10. Ex.P.10-Policy schedule.
11. Ex.P.11-Cylinder booking copy with OP No.1.
12. Ex.P.12-Copy of gas cylinder purchase receipt dt:25.08.2012.
13. Ex.P.13-Copy of quality Assurance in respect of gas stove.
14. Ex.P.14-Copy of member ship No.4130430 of deceased with HPC Ltd. 
15. Ex.P.15-Copy of gas membership card issued by OP No.1.
16. Ex.P.16-Copy of family tree certificate.

Exhibits in CC No.44/2021.

1. Ex.P.1-True copy of inquest panchanama.
2. Ex.P.2-True copy of PME report of Sushilamma (mother of complainants)

Evidence of OP.

6.         In similar manner the OP No.2 also lead his evidence as R.W.1, and got marked Ex R.1  to Ex.R.3 in CC.No.43/2021 and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3 in CC No.44/2021 which are as follows,

Exhibits in CC.No.43/2021

1. Ex.R.1- Repudiation letter dated 19.01.2021.
2. Ex.R.2- policy schedule for multi perils for LPG dealers policy.
3. Ex.R.3-General conditions of policy schedule.

Exhibits in CC.No.44/2021

1. Ex.R.1- Repudiation letter dated 19.01.2021.
2. Ex.R.2- policy schedule for multi perils for LPG dealers policy.
3. Ex.R.3-General conditions of policy schedule.

7.         This Commission heard the argument of complainant and OP No.2 and perused the records submitted by both parties and hence the points/issues arose for our considerations are as follows.

1. Whether the complainants prove that, they are the consumer to Ops and further any deficiency in service on the part of OP?  

2. Whether the Op No.2 proves that, this Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief/order? If so, What orders? 

8.         Our answers to the points raised above are as follows: -

1. In the affirmative.
2. In negative.
3. As per the final order.

9.         In order to decide the complaint issues, this commission discussed points/issues No.1 and 2 altogether for discussion as each points are inter related to each other- as follows.

10.       The complainants and Ops in both cases are one and same and their reliefs are also same in both cases for claiming compensation for the death of their parents.  Hence, the complainants filed application dated 30.01.2023, for clubbing both the cases for passing common orders.  Accordingly, the same application is allowed of for passing common order. 

In order to prove the case of the complaint, the complainant No.1 lead her evidence as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 in CC No.43/2021 and Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 in CC No.44/2021 and OP No.2 lead his evidence as R.W.1. and got marked Ex R-1 to Ex.R.2. in CC No.43/2021 and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3 in CC No.44/2021.  Perused the documents and pleadings of the complainant and OP No.2.  On perusal of the Ex.P.12 and 14, to 16, it is clear that, the deceased Ganapathi was customer of OP No.1 by purchasing LPG Gas connection through receipt No.1081 dt:25.08.2012 and the same was registered with OP No.1’s producer Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd through serial No.T4130430 dt:25.08.2012, and the cylinder in question burst was booked with OP no.1 through SMS booking as per Ex.P.11.  Therefore, on perusal of Ex.P.14 to 16, it is no doubt that, the deceased Ganapathi and his wife and present complainants are customer and beneficiaries respectively.  The Ex.P.16 amply proves the relationship between the deceased parents and present complainants.   Hence, complainants being daughters of said Ganapathi their father, they are also consumers to OP No.1 in turn to OP No.2 who is insurer of OP No.1, as he insured his entire premises and customers safety as per Ex.P.10, i.e., insurance policy schedule which was valid as on the date of incident in question.  In this regard complainants relied on the judgement of APSCDRC reported in IV(2005) CPJ 390 headnote (ii) Consumer-LPG connection in fathers name- complainant availing after father’s death-services of OP hired for consideration-complainant consumer. 

11.       It is also proved that, the said Ganapathi and Sushilamma were admitted to hospital on 04.08.2020 and their father Ganapathi died on 11.08.2020 as per Ex.P.7 PME report in CC.No.43/2021, and mother Sushilamma died on 12.09.2020 in CC No.44/2021, as per Ex.P.2 PME report, due to burnt injuries on account of cylinder burst in their house on 03.08.2020 which, deaths are proved by above documents. 

12.       The OP NO.1 though participated in the proceedings by filing the power but did not preferred to file, his W.V.  Therefore, in view of precedent laid down by Hon’ble National Commission reported in a decision 2017 (4) 590 (NC) i;e Aegon Religare Life Insurance Co. Ltd  vs Adari Laxmi that, the intentional non-filing of W.V. amounts to admission of the entire complaint averments.  Therefore, this commission is of the opinion that, non-denial of the complaint averments by OP No.1 is nothing but, admission of the enter allegations made against him by complainants.  This fact was denied by OP No.2 for want of personal knowledge.  Further the OP No.2 though denied in W.V. the father of the complainants as consumers to OP No.1, but it is proved by complainants through documents Ex.P.12 and 14 to 16, which are not rebutted by both OPs to discard as those documents are not the proof of complainants to be consumer and beneficiaries of deceased father.

13.       The OP No.2 admitted that, issuance of policy Ex.P.10 =EX.R.2 by him to OP No.1 and further the receipt of the claim of complainants through OP No.1 which was repudiated by him as per Ex.R.1 dt:19.01.2021.  At the cost of repetition, if we reproduce the same here, it is not found anything about of denial of the deceased parents of complainants as consumers which reads as under.

This has reverence to your claim intimation submission dated 09.10.2020 and claim form submission dated 18.12.2020, for loss occurred on 03.08.2020 due to blast of domestic gas cylinder in his customer house i.e., consumer No.606423, Ganapati Ramanna, Kumbar 406, Navadgeri,Bidar Sikandrapur.  Due to accident, Ganapathi S/o Ramanna and Sushilamma alias Sulochana were died. 

However, indemnity arises in Multi-perils policy for LPG dealer under Public Liability (Section VII) stated like “in respect of accidental death or bodily injury to any person other than a person under the insured’s service and insured’s family members and/of accidental damage to property caused by or arising from the installation of gas filled liquefied petroleum gas cylinder in the premises of the insured’s customers or whilst such cylinders from the Insured’s premises are in the course of being carried for installation in the premises of the insured’s customer or whilst such empty cylinders are in the course of being carried from the premises of the Insured’s customers  to the Insured’s premises”  therefore, liability is not in the scope of policy covers.

On plain reading of the above repudiation ground raised by the OP No.2, it cannot be accepted that, the complainants father was not beneficiary/customer as the OP No.2, did not deny the fact of the father of the complainants as not the consumer but, it is denied only the liability towards complainants by relying on the alleged policy condition not covering the policy coverage to customers of OP No.1.  There is lot of difference between denying the liability on the ground of deceased as not a consumer to OP No.1 and non-covering the customers of OP No.1 under the coverage of insurance policy.  So that, from the above discussion over Ex.R.1, it is crystal clear that, OP No.2 not denied the claim of complainants parents as not customers of OP No.1 but, it is for the fact that, the customers of OP no.1 not covered under the policy issued by him to OP No.1.   Moreover, it is the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a reported decision that, “the insurance company cannot be allowed to travel beyond the reasons stated in the repudiation letter” as held in 2016(14) SCC 161, Galada Power and Telecommunication V/s United India Insurance Co. and another.  Which has been up held the said principle again by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2019 part 4 CPR 654(Supreme Court) i.e., Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. V/s National Insurance Company. Therefore, this commission is of the opinion that, the OP No.2 not repudiated the claim of complainants on the ground that, they are not customers of the OP No.1 but, it is for the reason that, the customer of the OP No.1 are not covered under the policy, which is also against on plain reading of the Section VII of policy condition as per Ex.R.2, wherein it is specifically held that, accidental damage to property caused by or arising from the installation of gas filled liquefied petroleum gas cylinder in the premises of the insured’s customers is also covered under the policy. 

14.       That apart from the above if we peruse the Sec.X of Ex.R.2 in CC No.43/2021, which reads as under.

SECTION-X

P.A.BENEFIT TO ANY CUSTOMER OF ANY MEMBER OF HIS FAMILY OR ANY OTHER PERSON IN THE PREMISES WHERE CYCINDER IS INSTALLED.

            If any customer or any member of his family or any other person in the premises of the customer shall sustain bodily injury solely and directly caused by accidental violent external and visible means resulting in death or disablement as stated hereinafter due to installation of Cylinder.  The company shall pay to the customer/member of the family/other person in the premises of the customer the sum or sums set forth therein.  The death and Total Disablement benefits which are provided herein are similar to the benefits as described in Section IX of this policy under items(a) to (e).

P.S.  This benefit will not accrue to the insured and his employees.

Therefore, in conclusion for the reasons that, the OP No.1 remained absent throughout the proceedings without the denying the or rebutting the claim of complainants, which is nothing but, admission of the claim of complainant and further the OP No.2 repudiated claim of complainants for the reason that, the liability towards customers of the OP no.1 are not covered under the policy, which is against to his own policy condition in
Sec. VII and X, as per Ex.R.2 and the OP No.2 also cannot travel beyond the reason stated in the repudiation letter Ex.P.9 in CC No.43/2021, and Ex.R.1 in CC.No.44/2021, by denying his liability on the ground that, the father of the complainants is not consumer which is not found in the Ex.P.9 for repudiation of the claim.  In this regard, this commission is of the view that, the complaint has proved his case of her parents as consumer/complainant with OP No.1 and they are the beneficiaries as daughters of deceased Ganapathi and Sushilamma i.e., parents of complainants.  The complainants relied on following Citations in support of the claim which are amply applicable to case in hand,

1. 2009(I) CPJ 333
2. 2008 (I) CPJ 444 (NC)
3. 2005 (IV) CPJ 583
4. 2005 (IV) CPJ 487
5. 2005 (IV) CPJ 390 (HN-II)
6. 2005 (I) CPJ 104
7. Appeal No.2855,2856&2857/2010 dt:13.12.2011 KSCDRC.

15.       Now coming to the liability of OP No.2 in respect of policy issued to OP No.1 as per Ex.R.2 and Ex.R.3 in CC No.43/2021, towards claim of complainants.  On perusal of the Para No.5 of W.V. filed by OP No.2, it is admitted that, the policy was issued in the name of OP No.1 covering certain risk as shown in the policy and also as shown in terms and condition of the policy.  And further in Para No.10 of his W.V. the OP no.2 specifically non-disputed the averments of Para No.7 of the complaint in respect of the incident took place solely due to the negligence on the part of representative of OP No.1 who delivered and installed defective gas cylinder and they did not re-check at the time of delivery and installation, which is mandatory on the part of OP No.1 and due to leakage  of gas cylinder, it caught fire when it was being connected to the stove and thereby admitted the deficiency and negligence on the part of OP No.1 which caused extensive damage.  Further it is admitted that, the claim of the complainants was also received through OP No.1 and the same was repudiated for not covering risk of customer under policy terms and conditions.   The same is here by rebutted through their own records Ex.R.2 and Ex.R.3 as per Sec.VII and X applicability as discussed herein above.  The Ex.R.2 and Ex.R.3 rebutted the repudiation grounds as urged in Ex.P.9=Ex.R.1, and thereby the OP No.1 and 2 both are held liable to compensate the complainants as discussed herein below.

16.       Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, in order to assess the compensation payable for the loss of life, the commissions under the CP Act 2019, though not guided by any principles to be followed, however in view of principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in reported decision AIR 2015 SCW 360 (Manu/SC/1204/2014) in Raman Vs Uttar Hariyan Bijili Vitran Nigam Ltd, it is observed by Apex Court that, Multiplayer method as specified in the schedule of Motor Vehicle Act can be applied while determining the compensation for loss of lives.  Accordingly, this commission relied upon the above decision for determining the compensation payable to the complainants in both cases for the death of the parents, we referred to National Insurance Co. Vs Pranaya Sethi and ors, which is constitutional Bench Judgement now prevailing schedule for awarding the compensation under M.V.Act as follows.

17.       In CC.No.43/2021 the assessment of compensation for the death of father of complainants is as follows.  The Age of deceased father of complainants is 60 years as per Ex.P.7 PME report.  So, the applicable multiplier is 9.  However, on perusal of the complaint nothing is whispered about the income of the deceased father of the complainants.  Therefore this commission referred to notional income, which is being considered Rs.6,000/- in the absence of income proof and the dependents being only two daughters accordingly out of Rs.6,000/- 1/3 is deducted towards personal expenses.  Therefore, the final assessment for the death of father of complainants is as follows.

Rs.4,000 (after deducting 1/3 of notional income) X 12months X       
                      9 (multiplier)= Rs.4,32,000/-

                                                   Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of love and affection

                                                   Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate

                                                   Rs. 40,000/- loss of consortium

                                                   Rs. 15,000/- funeral expenses

                                       Rs. 43,200/- loss of future prospects as 10% of Rs.4,32,000/-

                                    Total =   Rs. 5,60,200/-

18.       In CC.No.44/2021 the assessment of compensation for the death of mother of complainant is as follows.  The Age of deceased mother of complainants is 55 years as per Ex.P.2 PME report.  So, the applicable multiplier is 11.  However, on perusal of the complaint nothing is whispered about the income of the deceased mother who is household by work.  Therefore, this commission referred to notional income which is being considered Rs.6,000/- to Rs.12,000/- towards housewife service by various High Courts in the absence of income proof and the dependents being only two daughters.  Therefore, in the absence of any pleadings regarding income of their mother, this commission considered Rs.6,000/- is reasonable towards house wife income.  Accordingly out of Rs.6,000/-, 1/3 is deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, the final assessment of compensation for the death of mother of complainants is as follows.

Rs.4,000 (after deducting 1/3 of notional income towards house wife) X 12 months X 11 (multiplier)=    Rs.5,28,000/-

                                                   Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of love and affection

                                                   Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate

                                                   Rs. 40,000/- loss of consortium

                                                   Rs. 15,000/- funeral expenses

                                       Rs. 52,800/- loss of future prospects as 10% of Rs.5,28,000/-

                                    Total =   Rs. 6,65,800/-

18.       In the lite of the above discussion  regarding the liability as per the policy conditions Section VII and X of Ex.R.2, insurance policy, the customers of the OP No.1 being beneficiaries as well as consumers to OP No.2 insurance company and thereby, as Op No. 2 admitted the validity of the policy with OP No. 1, the liability is fixed to Op No. 2 only. The above assessment of compensation is determined as held by Apex Court in AIR 2015 SCW 360 (Manu/SC/1204/2014) in Raman Vs Uttar Hariyan Bijili Vitran Nigam Ltd, this commission assessed compensation payable to father of complainants in CC NO.43/2021 as Rs.5,60,200/- alongwith interest and cost and further we assessed compensation payable to mother of complainants in CC NO.44/2021 as Rs.6,65,800/- alongwith interest and costs which is based on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co.Vs Pranaya Sethi and ors, which is constitutional Bench Judgement now prevailing schedule for awarding the compensation under M.V.Act.  Therefore, this commission is of the opinion that, the complainants proved their case for entitlement of death benefits of their parents and the Op No.1 and 2 utterly failed to prove their case and in view of admission of Op No 2 about the validity of policy of OP No. 1, this commission directs the Op No. 2 to indemnify the liability of Op No. 1.   Hence, we answered point No.1 and 3 in affirmative in favor of complainants and point No.2 in negative against OPs and hence, we proceed to pass the following,

::ORDER::

        The complaints No.43/2021 & 44/2021are allowed in part along with interest payable to complainants by OP No. 2 as follows.

1. In CC No.43/2021 the opponent No. 2 is hereby directed to pay Rs.5,60,200/- along with interest @ 6% P.A calculated from the date of repudiation of claim by OP No.2 to i.e., Ex.P.9, dt:19.01.2021, till realisation to complainants along with cost of litigation/s Rs.5,000/-.
2. In CC No.44/2021 the opponent No. 2 is hereby directed to pay Rs.6,65,800/- along with interest @ 6% P.A calculated from the date of repudiation of claim by OP NO.2 to i.e., Ex.R.1, dt:19.01.2021, till realisation to complainants along with cost of litigation/s Rs.5,000/-.
3. The above order shall be jointly and severally complied by Ops within 45 days from the date of order. 
4. The case against Op No. 1 is hereby dismissed. 
5. Keep the order copy in CC No.44/2021.

            Intimate the parties accordingly.                         

 (Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Commission on this 30^th day of January-2023).

Documents produced by the complainant.

Exhibits in CC.No.43/2021

1. Ex.P.1-True copy of UDR on the file of Market P.S.
2. Ex.P.2-True copy of complaint.
3. Ex.P.3-True copy of charge sheet.
4. Ex.P.4-True copy of Complainant No.2 supplementary statement.
5. Ex.P.5-True copy of Complainant No.1 supplementary statement.
6. Ex.P.6-True copy of supplementary statement of ASI Market P.S.
7. Ex.P.7-PME report of Ganapathi (father of complainants)
8. Ex.P.8-True copy of inquest panchanama.
9. Ex.P.9-True copy of repudiation letter.
10. Ex.P.10-Policy schedule.
11. Ex.P.11-Cylinder booking copy with OP No.1.
12. Ex.P.12-Copy of gas cylinder purchase receipt dt:25.08.2012.
13. Ex.P.13-Copy of quality Assurance in respect of gas stove.
14. Ex.P.14-Copy of member ship No.4130430 of deceased with HPC Ltd. 
15. Ex.P.15-Copy of gas membership card issued by OP No.1.
16. Ex.P.16-Copy of family tree certificate.

Exhibits in CC No.44/2021.

1. Ex.P.1-True copy of inquest panchanama.
2. Ex.P.2-True copy of PME report of Sushilamma (mother of complainants)

Document produced by the Opponent in CC No. 43/2021

1. Ex.R.1- Repudiation letter dated 19.01.2021.
2. Ex.R.2- policy schedule for multi perils for LPG dealers policy.
3. Ex.R.3-General conditions of policy schedule.

Document produced by the Opponent in CC No. 44/2021

1. Ex.R.1- Repudiation letter dated 19.01.2021.
2. Ex.R.2- policy schedule for multi perils for LPG dealers policy.
3. Ex.R.3-General conditions of policy schedule.

Witness examined.

Complainant in CC No. 43/2021 and 44/2021

1. P.W.1- Sareeta D/o Ganpathi (W/o Sudheer   (complainant No.1).

Opponent in CC No. 43/2021 and  CC No: 44/2021.

1. R.W.1- A.Y.E. Prasad. Manager for OP No. 2       (Opponent No. 2)