SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)

Filed on 07.11.2007

                  Complainants' case is as follows. The complainants are subscribers of the gas

connection manufactured and distributed by the 1st and 2^nd opposite parties.  One of the cylinders supplied by the said opposite parties was found seeping out, and the complainant over telephone informed the same to the 1^st  opposite party and registered a complaint vide receipt No.14823 dated 1^st  June 2007. Consequent to the complaint so filed, two service men sent by the 1^st  opposite party called on the premise of the complainant and replaced the washer of  the damaged cylinder.  There after on 3^rd  June 2007, when the first complainant attempted to prepare some food, the gas cylinder caught fire, and in the resultant let off the newly built up residential building of the complainant was damaged.  That apart, the household utensils such as refrigerator, mixer etc. was torched.  In the mean time fire force was called up. The police registered a case. Besides material damage, the complainants sustained mental agony. Notwithstanding repeated requests and other steps, the opposite parties declined to compensate the loss of the complainants.  Aggrieved by this the said complaint has been filed.

2. Notice was sent to the opposite parties and they turned up and filed detailed separate versions. The 1^st  opposite party contended that the accident took place solely due to the negligence of the complainant. The service man who replaced the washer of the cylinder, advised the complainant to remove the damaged connecting tube of the cylinder. Notwithstanding earnest advice, the complainants were reluctant to comply with same. Solely for this omission the mishap took place. At the material time of accident, the 1^st  opposite party had valid insurance with the 3^rd opposite party and as such, the 3^rd opposite party is liable to indemnify the opposite party when claims for damages arose from its customers, the 1^st  opposite party contended. At the same time, the 3^rd  opposite party contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint in view if the deficiency of service being defied by the 1^st  opposite party. There is no negligence on the part of the 1^st  opposite party.  The accident took place consequent to the negligence of the complainants themselves. In this back drop, the 3^rd opposite party is not at all liable to indemnify the 1^st opposite party. The second opposite party did not file any version  and they were remanded exparte.

3. Complainant's evidence consists of the testimony of the 1^st  complainant as PWl, and the documents Exbts. Al to A6 were marked. Exbt. Al is the FIR, A2 is the document as to change of distributor, A3 is the copy of the intimation receipt, A4 is the copy of the consumer card, and A5 is the copy of the fire occurrence report, A6 is the copy of the notice sent to the 1^st opposite party.  On the side of the opposite parties, the serviceman of the 1^st  opposite party was examined as RW1, and the document Exbt. B1 was marked. Exbt. B1 is the copy of the policy and its terms and conditions. Both the parties filed argument notes and were heard in detail.

  4.                  Taking into account the contentions of both the parties, the questions arise for

consideration are:-

(a) On whose negligence the accident occurred?

 (b) What is the quantum of damage so occurred?

5. Admittedly, there was an accident with respect of the gas cylinder distributed by

the 1^st  opposite party. When a leakage of the said cylinder surfaced, on being informed by the complainant, the serviceman of the 1^st   opposite party visited his premise and replaced the washer of the cylinder. As per the opposite party, the serviceman even advised the complainant to substitute the worn-out connecting tube with another afresh. Had the complainants complied with the advice, the said accident would have been avoided. The flames caught up not at the point of washer but at the spot of the defective connecting tube. We deplore, we are unable to accept the said contention of the opposite party.  The story advanced by the opposite party as to the accident apparently sounds unnatural. It is the duty of the 1 st opposite party to see that the cylinder they supplied remain intact. The attempt of the opposite party to shift its negligent conduct to the complainants' shoulder is visibly disgraceful. There was apparent negligence on the part of the opposite party and. consequent deficiency of service. The complainants sustained considerable mental agony. We hold that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are liable to compensate for the damage occurred to the complainants. Needless to say, the 3^rd opposite party shall indemnify the 1^st  and 2^nd opposite parties for  the same.

Before passing an order as to this, it seems that the quantum of damage the complainants sustained has to be resolved. We went through the records. We perused the oral testimony, Fire occurrence report and FIR.  In the fire occurrence report, the damage was assessed to an amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) and in the FIR the same was shown to an amount of Rs.30000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only).  The opposite party force fully disputed this, but took no steps to rebut the said contention of the complainant.  Not any surveyor's report as to this was filed.  In the light of the Fire occurrence report and FIR, we think that the actual damage lies somewhere between Rs.l0,000/- and  Rs.30000/-. 

The 1^st  opposite party is directed to replace the damaged gas cylinder with a new one and to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/-( Rupees fifteen thousand only) for the damages to the complainants and to pay Rs.1500/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred only) towards cost. It goes with out saying that the 3^rd opposite party shall indemnify the same.   The opposite parties are directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

                                                                                                                                                            In view of the forgoing discussion, the complaint allowed accordingly.  

                                                                                                Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:

                                                                                                Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:

                                                                                                Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainants:-

PW1                -                       B.Shylaja (Witness)

Ext.A1             -                       FIR (Photo copy)

Ext.A2             -                       Document as to change of distributor

Ext.A3             -                       Copy of the intimation receipt

Ext.A4             -                       Copy of the consumer card

Ext.A5             -                       Copy of the fire occurrence report

Ext.A6             -                       Copy of the notice sent to the 1^st opposite party           

Evidence of the opposite parties:- 

RW1                -                       Ajimon (Witness)

Ext.B1              -                       Policy with condition

// True Copy //

                                                                                                                        By Order

                                                                                                            Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainants/Opposite parties/S.F.

Typed by:-pr/-             

Compared by:-