Per Mrs. M. Shreesha, Presiding Member These Revision Petitions No. 53 and 54 of 2017 by Blue Flame Gas Agency (hereinafter referred to as “the Dealer”) and Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the Manufacturer”) have been preferred challenging the order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”)in First Appeal No. 286 of 2015. By the impugned order, the State Commission has concurred with the finding of deficiency of service by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as “the District Forum”) against the Opposite Parties, but modified the order directing the first and second Opposite Parties as arrayed in the main Complaint No. 917 of 2013, namely the Dealer and the Manufacturer, while limiting the liability of the third Opposite Party, namely, National Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Insurance Company”) to ₹90,000/-, while fastening the rest of the liability upon the Dealer and the Manufacturer. 2. The facts in brief are that the Complainants had availed domestic gas connection through the Dealer on 02.02.2012 and kept the gas cylinder in the store room, adjacent to the kitchen. While so, at about 10.30 on 29.02.2012, a small spark of fire was noticed from the top portion of the filled cylinder kept in the store room and on seeing the spark all the members of the house ran outside. The first Complainant tried to switch of the gas stove, which was being used in the kitchen but there was a huge explosion followed by fire, which was immediately intimated to the fire force. All efforts were made by the fire brigade to bring the fire under control. It was detected that the filled cylinder, which was kept in the store room had exploded, causing severe damage to all house hold articles and also the house totalling to a loss of ₹18,00,000/- and an FIR was lodged with the Police Station and Crime No. 263/2012 was registered. The said explosion of the cylinder and the damages were immediately reported to both the Dealer and the Manufacturer statement containing the detailed estimate for doing necessary repair works amount to ₹12,50,000/- and the damage house hold articles amount to ₹5,50,000/- was handed over to both the Dealer and the Manufacturer. 3. It is averred that the officials of both the Dealer and the Manufacturer had inspected the premises and prepared a detailed report. It is stated that they had assured the Complainant that the said claim would be forwarded to the Insurance Company, which in turn, settle the claim of the Complainant for the damages that they had sustained. A surveyor also inspected the premises and calculated all the relevant documents in order to process the claim. 4. Thereafter, the Complainant made repeated requests to the Dealer and the Manufacturer. It is averred that he was shown a copy of the claim application alleged to have been sent by the Manufacturer to the Insurance Company, which was only for an amount of ₹5,50,000/-. It is pleaded that this amount was wrongly filled in by the Manufacturer as the Complainant had submitted a claim for a total amount of ₹18,00,000/-. 5. Aggrieved by the lesser amount claimed by the Manufacturer, the first Complainant who claimed ₹18,00,000/- requested for a copy of the inspection report said to be prepared by the Manufacturer. It is further averred that it was specifically conveyed to the Manufacturer that the house in which the cylinder had exploded was left to remain in the very said condition and that another inspection by the authorities concerned would reveal the actual extent of damages. Once again the Complainant has said that they were reassured by both the Dealer and the Manufacturer that the needful will be done at the earliest. Due to lack of funds, the Complainants could not rectify the defects apart from replacing some of the broken glass windows. It is averred that it was only because of the defective gas cylinder that there was an explosion. It was pleaded that the cylinder in the store room has exploded on its own and that the Opposite Parties were deficient not only in providing a defective cylinder but also in making the written claim of the loss sustained by the Complainant and giving false assurances that the claim would be settled by the Insurance Company. 6. Hence, the Complaint seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to pay total compensation of ₹18,00,000/-, ₹50,000/- towards mental agony and ₹1,39,000/- towards the rent paid by the Complainants from 15.03.2012 till the date of institutions of Complaint. 7. The Dealer filed his Written Version stating that the gas cylinder was delivered to the first Complainant on 02.02.2012 and not on 01.02.2012. It is denied that the Dealer had given a defective cylinder; that the explosion was on account of the defective cylinder and that any assurance was given by them for settlement of the claim. It is pleaded that the gas filled in the cylinder would not come out on its own without any external interference and for a spark to have been seen, there should definitely be some friction. The gas cylinder supplied by the Manufacturer undergoes several stages of stringent quality and safety checks and that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on their behalf. 8. The Manufacturer filed the Written Version denying that they had agreed to compensate the Complainant and that they had manufactured defective gas cylinder. It is stated that the pleas of the Complainant are inconsistent and that the alleged fire breakdown only in the store room of the house. It is pleaded that no fire can breakout unless the LPG vapour is ignited. It is certain that the fire occurred due to some other reason like electrical short circuit etc. and it was the said fire that the subject gas cylinder was exploded; therefore no deficiency of service can be attributed to the Manufacturer. It is also denied that they had ever instructed the Complainants to leave their house in the same condition to facilitate another inspection. 9. The Insurance Company filed their Written Version stating that Public Liability Policy for Oil Industries was issued indemnifying the Manufacturer for the period from 02.05.2011 to 01.05.2012, to the extent provided in the policy schedule. 10. The District Forum based on the evidence adduced allowed the Complaint directing the Insurance Company to pay an amount of ₹18,50,000/- towards loss and compensation. 11. In an Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company, the State Commission has modified the order of the District Forum, directing the Insurance Company to pay only an amount of ₹90,000/- on the ground that as per the policy filed, the liability would be limited to ₹1,00,000/- subject to deduction of compulsory excess. It was observed by the State Commission that as per Clause 9 of the policy only those accidents while filling, LPG cylinder s lying at the registered customers premises are covered and that the cover to third party is limited to ₹50,00,000/- per person per event and in the case of property damage the maximum payable is ₹1,20,000/- per event at the authorized customers registered premises. Hence the State Commission has deducted the excess amount of ₹10,000/- from ₹1,00,000/- holding that the specific amount is to be paid by the Dealer and the Manufacturer. 12. It is the case of the Dealer that the accident was intimated to the Dealer; that neither the defect in the goods nor any deficiency of service was pleaded against them; that the gas cylinder undergoes multiple stages of stringent quality check by the Manufacturer before delivery and due care and diligence is exercised by the Dealer during delivery; there is no evidence that it was the defective gas cylinder, which had resulted in the fire breakdown; that the Complaint was filed on 31.12.2013 and the cause of action occurred on 29.02.2012; that the inspection was conducted by the Commissioner appointed by the District Forum nearly two years after the incident and therefore the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner cannot be accepted; that the Commissioner was examined as PW-2, who admitted that any building is subject to depreciation and therefore could not assess the real value of the building, which was constructed 15 years ago. Learned Counsel appearing for the Dealer vehemently argued that the Commissioner had no knowledge with respect to the incident and nature of damages and therefore his assessment cannot be relied upon. He further added that the Commission was unaware of the kind of tiles used in the kitchen, the condition of septic tank, the cost of the main door, the teakwood used for frames of the door and windows, and assessed an exorbitant amount by making the guess work. Learned Counsel also argued that the Dealer cannot be made liable merely because the Complainants did not undertake any repair works and had left the alleged building for a period of two years. He further argued that even if the finding that the cylinder is defective, the liability cannot be fastened upon the Dealer. 13. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Manufacturer that there is absolutely no evidence on record that a cylinder was defective and that both the Fora below have wrongly relied upon the expert commissioner’s report. 14. On a pointed query from the Bench, as to whether any inspection was carried out by the Manufacturer on information received either from the Dealer or from the Complainant with respect to the fire incident, learned Counsel appearing for the Manufacturer submitted that an inspection dated 12.03.2012 was conducted and that the same is filed as an additional document before this Commission. A brief perusal of the same shows that the report is dated 12.03.2012, when admittedly the date of accident was 29.02.2012. It is stated in the report that the place of accident was in the store room, adjacent to the kitchen. It is also specified that the cylinder had exploded and broken into six pieces and apart from the general details regarding the Consumer name, the type of gas cylinder, the address, the comments given by Mr. T.V. Sivan Manager, IOCL is as follows: “a) Action against distributor where It is established as his negligence. Not applicable. b) Action taken such as education/ remedial steps where it is established it is due to customer’s fault: Customer has been educated on the safe use of LPG, proper storage of LPG equipments etc. c) Action taken if it is faulty equipment: could not be established. d) Any claim lodged by customer/ third party on Corporation/ distributor and action thereof: NIL e) Relief measures taken/ given to the affected persons: Insurance claim lodged. f) If news item has appeared in the press any rejoinder given, if so details: News published in the Mathrubhumi daily on 01.03.2012 ” 15. It is pertinent to note that this report does not establish in any manner the cause of accident but only states that it is the customers fault. In Column-C action taken if it is faulty equipment and it is reported as could not establish. Therefore the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Manufacturer that the fire had taken place on account of short circuit or some other reason and in that fire the gas cylinder had exploded is without any basis. In the aforementioned report the analysis and the remedial action had also been noted. In the annexures to the subject report it is stated that the Dealer had followed rules/ procedure of IOCL; that the fire occurred first might had engulfed cylinder and that the explosion can take place only when the cylinder is exposed to a temperature ranging from 410o to 580 o. It is relevant to mention here that this report is not part of the record before the Fora below. 16. It is observed from the record that only the Insurance Company challenged the order of the District Forum and both the Dealer and the Manufacturer did not choose to prefer any Appeal despite findings of the District Forum against them. Paragraph 8 of the order of the District Forum notes as follows: “No technical evidence has been adduced by the opposite parties to indicate that could be the possible cause of an otherwise defect free cylinder, all of a sudden becoming defective and valve/ nozzle start leaking when in the premises of the complainants. If the valve/ nozzles not defective, it cannot of its own start leaking, especially when the cylinder was not in use. In a case where leakage occurs within a few days of supply of the refilled cylinder, the assumption would be that the valve used in the cylinder was defective and that is why, it started leaking when the cylinder was in the premises of the complainant. …………..” (Emphasis Supplied) 17. From the aforentoed findings of the District Forum, it is evident that the District Forum has given a finding that the Manufacturer was liable to compensate for the loss, and has fastened the liability on the Insurance Company as it had issued indemnification policy. The District Forum had given a categorical finding that the Dealer cannot be held responsible for the loss of the customer. 18. It is evident from the aforentoed observation that the finding of deficiency of service against the Manufacturer has attained finality. It is also seen from the record that both the Fora below have relied on the expert commissioner’s report given by B-tech Civil Engineer Mr. Manoj K.M., employed as Assistant Engineer PWD. The contention of the learned Counsel that the Commissioner did not have the knowledge to assess the defects in the building is untenable in the light of the fact that the Commissioner is a qualified civil engineer working as an Assistant Engineer in the PWD Department. A perusal of the Commissioner’s Report clearly shows that the Commission had given a detailed Report regarding the damage caused to the rooms, the doors, the kitchen area, the window glasses, the work area, the bed room, the tiles, the cracks in the walls damage to the stare case to the steel hand rails and also damage to the electrical and plumbing system. Hence, there is not substantial reason to hold that both the Fora below had erroneously relied on this Report. 19. On a pointed query from the Bench, as to what action the Manufacturer had taken immediately after the incident with respect to calling for a report from the Dealer or whether pieces of cylinder were taken for any inspection/ investigation, Leaned Counsel submitted that there was no such procedure and that only a report dated 12.03.2012 was filed as an additional document. 20. It is pertinent to mention that a perusal of the exhibits before the fora below does not evidence that this report was filed and marked as an exhibit before the District Forum. There are only three exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties and that is the Insurance Policy, the Survey Report and the letter dated 08.05.2013. I do not find any cogent reasons to disbelieve the expert Commissioner’s report, which is a detailed one. The Assistant Engineer, PWD was appointed as an expert to assess the extent of damage in the house had given a report that the estimate of repairs would cost ₹19,30,928.36/-. The District Forum had awarded the claim amount of ₹18,00,000/- to be paid by the Insurance Company. 21. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and that there was no conclusive enquiry conducted by the Manufacturer immediately after the incident to establish cause of accident and nature of fire; the document filed here was not marked as an exhibit before the Fora below; that both the Fora below have rightly relied upon the expert Commissioner’s report; that the Complainant had made a claim of ₹18,00,000/- towards accident and damage and that the Manufacturer did not prefer any Appeal before the State Commission against the finding of the District Forum against them, I am of the view that the finding against the Manufacturer has not only attained finality, and further hold that there is clear deficiency of service by the Manufacturer for the aforenoted reasons. 22. Now, I address myself to the extent the Insurance Company is liable. For better understanding of the case the relevant Clause is reproduced as hereunder: “ (B) In the event of damage to property due to usage of OPG Cylinder during the policy period whilst such cylinder is in the process of installation at authorised customer’s registered premises or whilst lying at such registered premises, the company shall be liable to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- (Maximum per event) irrespective of legal liability. Subject to independent survey report.” 23. Keeping in view the aforenoted clause, I hold that there is no illegality in the order of the State Commission, which has limited the liability of the Insurance Company to the extent of ₹1,00,000/- less excess, as can be seen from the terms of Insurance given in the schedule that the Insurance Company is liable only if the accident occurs at (a) Customers registered premises, (b) Registered Dealers premises, (c) During transit when such LPG cylinder are in the hands of registered transport contractors, while carrying such LPG cylinder from the oil company to the distributors premises, (d) while LPG cylinder for in transit, carried by Dealer by the Dealer’s employees to the customer’s premises, (e) while arising out of the use of LPG supplied by the insured in reticulated system, community kitchen, other application like geysers, lighting generator sets, irrigation pumps etc., and (f) while the cylinder is being connected to the LPG installation or while being disconnected from LPG installation. 24. Admittedly, the limits of liability per event is ₹50,00,000/- and per person is ₹10,00,000/- as the said incident has taken place due to burst of the cylinder kept in the store room and the incident did not occur in the Dealers premises or in the conditions prescribed above, the Insurance Company is liable only to the extent observed by the State Commission. Therefore, the Revision Petition No. 54 of 2017 preferred by the Manufacturer is dismissed and the order of the State Commission is confirmed to the extent of their liability. 25. Having held that the cylinder burst was on account of manufacturing defect, I hold that the Dealer cannot be made liable and the finding of the District Forum with respect to the fact that there was no deficiency of service is confirmed. Hence the Revision Petition No. 53 of 2017 preferred by the Dealer is allowed and the order passed by the State Commission with respect to the liability of the Dealer is set aside, while confirming the rest of the order of the State Commission. 26. Needless to add, the amounts deposited by the Manufacturer in Revision Petition No. 54 of 2017, with interest accrued, stand released to the Complainant and will be adjusted from the decretal amount. | 
