BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

            Dated this the 12^th day of February 2018.

(Muvattupuzha Camp Sitting)

                                                                                                                        Filed on : 29.02.2016

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose,                                                           President.

Shri. Sheen Jose,                                                                            Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K.                                                                 Member.

                             C.C.No. 139/2016

                                 Between          

O R D E R

Sheen Jose, Member

1.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant is an Indiane LPG consumer of the 1^st opposite party having consumer No.CX22625364 while so on 16.05.2015 at around 3 pm refilled cylinder was delivered to the complainant. The wife of the complainant who was in the house took the cylinder and tried to fit the regulator on it.  At that time she felt the emanation of the false smell.  She suspected the leakage and immediately she took the cylinder to the sit out of the house. The matter was informed to the 1^st opposite party over phone thrice. They asked to bring the cylinder to their yard. By the time, the fire erupted from the cylinder and spread over. The father of the complainant along with the neighbours had succeeded in controlling the spreading of fire by spraying water. The fire force also reached the spot. In the meantime the wife of the complainant Smt.Asha suffered burn injuries over her left hand, eyebrows and fire affected her hairs also.  The roof of the house, door, wiring Fan, bulbs etc.. were damaged extensively.  The father, wife and the son of the complainant were put to severe mental shock and fear due to unexpected incident.  A major tragedy was averted due to the timely action of the wife of the complainant and the neighbours.  Fortunately the cylinder was not exploded.  The police who reached the spot later had confiscated the cylinder and regulator. The cylinder leakage was due to the purposeful negligence on the part of the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties.  Had they conducted a safety check of the filled cylinders before taking it for delivery, the accident could have been averted.  The supply of defective cylinders so as to cause safety hazards to the customers amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complainant had suffered monetary loss, mental agony, and hardships due to the fire accident. The ‘8’ inch front door of his house worth Rs. 25,000/- was totally destroyed due to the fire.  The roof of the house of the complainant was renovated by spending Rs. 1,37,848/-. Though the matter was taken to the opposite parties, no compensation was paid by them.  The 2^nd opposite party who is the insurer of the gas agency had conducted a survey to assess the loss.  But no compensation was paid by them also. Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 1,37,848/- that was spent by him for renovating the roof of his house.  He also sought for an amount of Rs.2 lakh from the opposite party towards compensation for the mental agony, financial loss and hardship suffered by him and his family due to the fire accident.  Hence this complaint.

2)       In response to the notice from this Forum, opposite parties 1 to 4 appeared before the Forum. The 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties filed their version in time.   The 2^nd and 4^th opposite parties have not filed any version.

3)       Version filed by the 1^st opposite party is as follows:

The complainant is a customer of M/s.Vazhuthanappilli Indane Gramin Vitrak of which Smt.Jilcy Thomas is the proprietor and she delivered a refilled gas cylinder on 16.05.2015 at 3 p.m. The 1^st opposite party stated in their version that she knew the fact the cylinder was fired due to leakage.  But there was neither negligence nor unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  It is submitted that the reason of leakage was only due to the manufacturing defect of the gas cylinder.  Even if the fire was aroused for the reason of any safety measures, the 1^st opposite party is not personally or by any other means liable to the loss and damages occurred.  It is submitted that the public liability as well as any suffering of damages aroused due to the customers’ utility will have to be provided by the M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd. on the basis of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.

4)      Version filed by the 3^rd opposite party is as follows:

The 3^rd opposite party-Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through its Area Manager submitted in their version that the above complaint is not maintainable before this Forum either in law or on facts as against the 3^rd opposite party.  It is contended that the 3^rd opposite party is absolutely an unnecessary party in the above case. After the alleged incident on 16.05.2015, the 3^rd opposite party through its competent officer, conducted an inquiry and ascertained that the complainant’s wife Smt.Asha Jomon had replaced an empty LPG cylinder refill with a new one.  After connecting the refill she noticed leakage from the pressure regulator and she allegedly carried the refill and hot plate outside the residence, by that time the refill allegedly caught fire and her father-in-law poured water and doused the flames.  The police and Fire-Force personnels also rushed to the spot.  In the inspection conducted, it was found that it is only due to the lack of experience of the complainant’s wife in connecting the new refill to the regulator, gas leaked through the pressure regulator, which led to the fire.  The fire might have occurred due to the flames from the conventional stove or due to the switching on of some electrical light or appliances.  As per the information from the 1^st opposite party, the 3^rd opposite party conducted an inspection through its Field Officer and submitted a LPG accident report on 20.06.2015. It is seen that the complainant’s wife was treated at the Karuna Medical Centre, Kuttampuzha on 18.05.2015 and an amount of Rs.420/- was spent for her treatment.  From the inspection report and the statement of the complainant, the 3^rd opposite party feels that it was only due to the lack of experience of the complainant’s wife, who improperly connected the pressure regulator to the refill, that the gas leaked and consequently the fire erupted.  It is contended that at any rate, the 3^rd opposite party cannot be saddled with any liability as claimed in the complaint.  Without prejudice to the above, the 3^rd opposite party submitted that it has taken a public liability insurance policy bearing No.0217002715P10133 22 73 from the 4^th opposite party United India Insurance Company which is valid for the period from 02.05.2015 to 01.05.2016, inter-alia covering all accidents arising out of the usage of the LPG cylinder refills.  Therefore, if at all, the 3^rd opposite party is found liable to pay any compensation to the complainant; it is only the 4^th opposite party who is liable to indemnify the 3^rd opposite party for all such claims covered by the policy.  Based on the incident the 3^rd opposite party has already submitted the claim to the 4^th opposite party on 20.06.2015 along with the complainant’s claim form. The said claim is pending consideration before the 4^th opposite party. The 3^rd opposite party was not aware about the allegation in paragraph 1 of the complaint that the complainant informed the 1^st opposite party of the gas leak, but they directed her to take the refill to their yard.  The complainant’s wife improperly connected the pressure regulator to the new refill that the leakage occurred and the fire broke out. There was no defect in the refill supplied to the complainant. LPG cylinder refills are supplied to the Distributors, who in turn distribute them to the customers, after elaborate safety and security checks at the bottling plant, and at Distributors end.  It is also stated that all refills are subject to stringent scrutiny before they will be distributed to the customers.  In the case on hand, as discernible from the records, it stands substantiated that it is only due to the negligence on the part of the complainant’s wife, who improperly connected the regulator to the refill, that the fire broke out.  Had the complainant’s wife fitted the regulator to the refill as per the industry norms and safety instructions given to customers, the accident would not have occurred.  Therefore, the 3^rd opposite party cannot be held liable for any loss sustained by the complainant’s wife. There is no deficiency in service happened on the part of the 3^rd opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party is in no way liable to compensate the complainant as alleged in the complaint.

5)       Evidence in this case consisted of proof affidavit filed by the complainant and his wife and they were examined as PW1 and PW2 respectively.  Exbt. A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence adduced by the opposite parties. Exbt. B1 was marked on their side as documentary evidence.

6)       Issues came up for considerations are as follows:

1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,37,848/- from the opposite parties, which was spent by the complainant for renovating the roof of his residential building?
3. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant?

7)       Issue Nos. (i) and (ii)

          The complainant is an Indiane LPG consumer of the 1^st opposite party having the consumer No. CX22625364 and a refilled cylinder was delivered to the complainant on 16.05.2015 at his residence and the complainant’s wife tried to fix the regulator on it. At that time she felt some foul smell from the refilled cylinder and it was taken to the sit out of the residence and the matter was informed to the 1^st opposite party over phone.  The 1^st opposite party directed her to bring the cylinder to their yard. But by the time, the fire erupted from the cylinder and spread over.  The spreading fire was doused off by immediate action taken by the neighobours and father of the complainant. The Fire force team reached the spot thereafter. The wife of the complainant Smt. Asha suffered burn injury on her left hand, eyebrows and the fire affected her hairs also.  The roof of the house, door, wiring fan, bulbs etc got damaged extensively in the fire. However, fortunately the cylinder was not exploded.  The cylinder and regulator were confiscated by the police on the fateful day. The case of the complainant is that the leakage of gas from the cylinder occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties in not conducting the safety checks on the refilled cylinder before delivering the same to the complainant which amounted to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties.  According to the complainant, the door of his house valued Rs.25,000/- was completely destroyed due to the occurrence of the fire.  The roof of the house of the complainant was also destroyed in the fire that an estimated amount of Rs.1,37,848/- was required to renovate the roof of the house and spent to renovate the roof of the house. No compensation was granted to the complainant by any of the opposite parties despite specific request. The complainant contended that he is entitled to get compensation from all the opposite parties jointly and severally to make good the loss occurred to the complainant. The 1^st opposite party stated in their version that there was neither negligence nor any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service happened on their part. The 1^st opposite party categorically stated in their version that the leakage occurred due to the manufacturing defect of the gas cylinder. The 3^rd opposite party contended that it was only due to the lack of experience of the complainant’s wife in connecting the new refill to the regulator, gas leaked through the pressure regulator which lead to the fire. The fire might have occurred due to the flames from the conventional stove or due to the switching on of some electrical lights or appliances. The 3^rd opposite party had sent their Field Officer to make an enquiry in the matter. In the report of the field officer and from the statement of the complainant, the 3^rd opposite party came to the conclusion that the leakage of the gas occurred only due to the lack of experience of the complainant’s wife to connect the pressure regulator to the refilled cylinder and consequently the fire erupted. It is further submitted by the 3^rd opposite party that it had taken a public liability insurance policy bearing No.0217002715P10133 22 73 from the 4^th opposite party which was valid for the period from 02.05.2015 to 01.05.2016 inter-alia covering all accidents arising out of the use of refilled LPG cylinder.  Therefore, it is only the 4^th opposite party who is liable to indemnify the 3^rd opposite party for all such claims covered by the policy. Accordingly, the 3^rd opposite party had submitted a claim to the 4^th opposite party on 20.06.2015 along with the complainant’s Claim Form. It is also submitted that there was no defects in the refilled cylinder supplied to the complainant since elaborate safety and security checks were conducted at the bottling plant itself before distributing the cylinders to the distributors.  It was only due to the negligence of the complainant’s wife leakage of gas occurred and the fire broke out. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as claimed for in the complaint.  The insurance company has not filed their version in this case. 

8)      Exbt. A1 receipt dated 16.05.2015 issued by the 1^st opposite party shows that the complainant had booked and purchased refilled cylinder by paying an amount of Rs.631/- Exbt. A2 consumer data book shows that the above said disputed cylinder was delivered on 16.05.2015.  Exbt. A3 is the fire report showing that the fire was restricted to one room of the residence of the complainant and the loss occurred to the building amounted Rs.45,000/- and that occurred to household articles amounted Rs.5,000/- totaling Rs.50,000/- .  Exbt. A4 is the FIR prepared by Kuttampuzha Police Station dated on 18.05.2015 at 17.46 hrs., where in it is stated that fire occurred from the refilled cylinder on 16.05.2015 at 3.15 pm and a loss of Rs.50,000/- occurred to the complainant.  Exbt. A5 is the Mahazar Report prepared by SI of Kuttampuzha police station and A6 is the copy of the photographs of fire accident site of the residence of the complainant. Exbt.A7 is the bill issued by A M Metals to the complainant dated on 01.01.2016 which clearly shows that the complainant had spent an amount of Rs.99,160/- for purchasing  materials for making an urgent repairs in his residence. On going through the evidences produced by the complainant before this Forum it is seen that a fire accident had occurred and considering the extensive damages occurred to the household articles of the complainant including roof of the house, door, and burn injury to his wife due to the fire accident in gas cylinder, we find that the complainant is entitled to get compensation  claimed by him Rs.1,37,848/- in his complaint which is found very reasonable and we allow the claim in favour of the complainant and we also hold that all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount to the complainant.  Since there was considerable delay in taking measures to indemnify the complainant.

9)      We also find that no amount was paid to the complainant towards compensation by either of the opposite parties despite a positive report from the Fire Department, Police Department and the Insurance Company and they were also failed to give admissible insured amount under the Public Liability Policy as per Exbt.A1 policy. This amounted to gross deficiency in service on the part of the 3^rd opposite party. 

10)    We analyze the facts and circumstances of the case and could understand that there is a gross deficiency in service happened on the side of all the opposite parties.  The 3^rd opposite party alleged that the fire accident happened only due to the lack of experience of the complainant’s wife in connecting the new refill to the regulator, gas leaked through the pressure regulator, which led to the fire. But, except for the averments made the opposite party failed to prove their allegations with the substantial evidence. We discard the above contention of the opposite parties in the absence of valid evidence.  The complainant’s wife had mounted the box as PW2 and deposed that she tried to fix the gas cylinder into the regulator and at that time she felt the emanation of false smell.  She suspected the gas leakage and immediately she took the cylinder to the sit out of the house and the matter was informed to the 1^st opposite party over phone thrice and the 1^st opposite party asked the complainant’s wife that to take the cylinder to their yard. We find that the above said act of the 1^st opposite party is clear case of deficient service.

11)    The 3^rd opposite party stated in their version that they had taken a public liability insurance policy from the 4^th opposite party which is valid for the period from 02.05.2015 to 01.05.2016 inter- alia covering all accidents arising out of the use of the LPG cylinder refills. Therefore, if at all the 3^rd opposite party is found liable to pay any compensation to the complainant, it is only the 4^th opposite party who is liable to indemnify the 3^rd opposite party has already submitted the claim to the 4^th opposite party on 20.06.2015, along with the complainant’s claim form.  The said claim is pending consideration before the 4^th opposite party.  It was at this juncture that the complainant has filed the present complaint. The complaint filed this complaint before this Forum on 29.02.2016, but the insurance claim was pending before the 4^th opposite party on 20.06.2015.  The complainant has been waiting for a long period to get the compensation from the opposite party.  But the 4^th opposite party did not take any urgent decision to settle the claim filed by the 3^rd opposite party. On other hand, the 3^rd opposite party failed to follow up the same to the 4^th opposite party. The acts of the opposite parties amounted to gross deficiency in service.  In the above case, we are of the opinion that the complainant’s case is believable and there is a gross deficiency in services happened on the side of all the opposite parties. Also we find that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,37,848/- from the opposite parties which amount was spent by him for renovating the residential building.

12)     Issue No (iii)

We find that the issue Nos (i) and (ii) are in favour of the complainant and gross deficiency of service happened on the side of the opposite parties.  Naturally, the complainant and his family members had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss… etc. due to the deficient service on the part of the opposite parties which calls for compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant.  We award an amount of Rs.1 lakh towards compensation along with Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant.

 10)   In the result, we allow the complaint and direct as follows:

1. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs.1,37,848/- to the complainant which amount was spend by the complainant for renovating the residential building of the complainant.
2. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs. 1 lakh towards compensation for the deficient service offered by the opposite parties to the complainant.
3. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.5000/- towards costs of this proceedings.

The above orders shall be complied with, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the above amounts shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the 31^st day of receipt of this order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 12^th day of February 2018.

                                                          Sd/-Sheen Jose, Member

                                                          Sd/-Cherian K. Kuriakose, President

                                                          Sd/-Beenakumari V.K., Member

Forwarded by Order

Senior Superintendent

Date of Despatch   :

          By Hand      :

          By Post       :

                                        APPENDIX

Complainant’s Exhibits:

Opposite party’s Exhibits:   

Depositions

          PW1 :         Jomon

          PW2 :         Asha                     

                                     ……………………..