Smt.G.Vasanthakumari, President
(2)
The complainant Ibrahimkutty has filed this complaint claiming a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- as compensation on account of the explosion of a gas cylinder supplied by the first opposite party and manufactured by the second opposite party. The third opposite party is the insurer.
Complainant’s case is that on 04.05.2002 at about 6.15 PM the delivery boy of the first opposite party installed a LPG gas cylinder in the residence of the complainant without proper care and caution and in a negligent manner as a result of which while the complainants’ wife litted a kerosene lamp in the evening in the kitchen the LPG cylinder exploded causing damage to the building and other household articles and injury to the wife of the complainant and as a result the complainant sustained a loss of Rs.1,10,000/-, that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and opposite parties are liable to compensate the same.
Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed version raising more or less the similar contentions. After admitting that the complainant has availed gas connection from the first opposite party who is the dealer of the second opposite party, it is contended that the complaint is not maintainable, that the incident was occurred due to the negligence on the part of the wife of the complainant herself and not on account of any negligence on the part of the delivery boy of opposite party 1, that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the first and second opposite party and that the customers of the first opposite party are covered by the insurance policy of the third opposite party.
(3)
Opposite party 3 filed version contenting that opposite party 3 had issued a LPG dealers indemnity policy in favour of the first opposite party covering multi perils specified in the policy subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, that by virtue of the contract of indemnity the insurer is liable to indemnify the assured only if the assured has been found liable in respect of a particular loss covered under the policy, that the complainant is eligible to claim compensation amount from the assured only after quantification of the loss sustained to him which is properly assessed by a competent person, that the licensed surveyor of third opposite party assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.10,687/- but first opposite party never submitted the detailed particulars of the loss to enable the company to process the claim and to settle the claim and the complainant has no right to claim against 3rd opposite party.
The third opposite party filed additional version contenting that in the policy the first opposite party had obtained a coverage towards public liability Under Section VI of the insurance policy condition by collecting a premium amount of Rs.350/-, that as per Section VI of the Public liability coverage the company is liable to indemnify the insured in respect of an accidental death or bodily injury sustained to any person other than a person under the insured’s service or accidental damage to property caused by or arising from installation of gas filled liquefied petroleum gas cylinger in the premises of the insured’s customers or while such cylinders from the insured’s premises are in the course of being carried for installation in the premises of the insured’s customers or while such empty cylinders are in the course of being carried from the premises of the insured customers to the insured’s premises, that in this case the alleged damages
(4)
sustained to the complainant’s property is not an insured risk under the policy and as such this opposite party is not liable to indemnify the first opposite party.
The points for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party?
2. Whether the risk of the complainant who is a customer who had availed service from the first opposite party is covered under the policy or not?
3. Reliefs and costs?
For the complainant PW1 was examined and marked Exts.P1 to P5. For the opposite parties DWS 1 & 2 were examined and marked Exts.D1 to D4.
This case was heard and disposed of my predeccessor in office by order dated: 10.10.2003 finding that the first opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,687/- to the complainant and the third opposite party is liable to indemnify the same. The matter was taken up in Appeal No.58/2004 and by judgment dated: 24-01-2007 Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission set aside the order and the matter was remitted back directing the Forum to consider the pleadings of the parties, evidence and to decide the case applying mind on merits after hearing both sides.
Heard
(5)
The Points:-
It is an admitted fact that the complainant has availed gas connection from the first opposite party who is the dealer of the second opposite party. Complainant was examined as PW1. He would swear before the forum in tune with the allegations in the complainant. Nothing was brought out in his cross – examination to discredit the witness. According to him on 04.05.02 at about 6.15 PM the delivery boy of the first opposite party had installed the LPG gas cylinder in the residence of the complainant without proper care and caution and in a negligent manner and as a result in the evening while his wife litted a kerosene lamp in the kitchen the LPG cylinder exploded causing damage to the building and household articles and injury to his wife. Ext.P1 is the cash bill dated: 16-05-2000 and indane customer subscription voucher dtd : 16-05-2000 to show that complainant is a customer of opposite party 1 from 16-05-2000. Ext.P2 is GD extract of Kollam East Police Station dated : 05-05-2002. In that it is recorded as óЩ´ó¢ø 󢩿¢ý œ¶·¡›« ‚ªö®×®ó¡û°¢ý œ®ø¡»¥¶¢ý ˆ¢ù´Ä¢ý ‚±—¡÷¢«ˆ¤¶¢ð¤¨Ð œñ¡Ä¢ •©›§õ¢µ® ö®˜ò¨··¢. •©›§õ¢µÄ¢ý 04.05.2002 ¨¨óˆ¢¶® 6 »Ã¢ð®´® Т ð¡¨üú óˆ ¨ˆ¡¿« »¤›¢ö¢¸¡ò¢×¢ ó¡û°® ›Øû IX 󣶤›Øû 294 …¼® œÄ¢µ® ›Øú¤¾ Т 󣶢›¤¾¢ý œ¡ˆó¡Äˆ ö¢ò¢Ùû ò£´¡ð¢ Ä£ œ¢Ð¢µ® 󣶤œˆñùø¤«, óö®±Ä¹ø¤«, ˆ¶¢ò¤«, ×£©¸¡ð¤«, ö®×ªó¤«, ó£Ð¢¨üú ©»ý´¥ñð¤«, »¥¼¤óô« ¨×𤫠ģ œ¢Ð¢µ® ›ô¢µÄ¢ý óµ® ƒ©Àô« 30,000/- ñ¥œð¤¨Ð ›õ®Ð« ö«Ÿó¢µ¢¶¤¾Ä¡ð¢ ¨óø¢ó¡ð¢¶¤¾Ä¡ˆ¤¼¤. Ext.P3 is fire report. In that cause of fire is recorded as LPG cylinder leak.𢠕Ф·¤ ˆ·¢µ¤ óµ¢ñ¤¼ »¨ÃåÃå ó¢ø´¢ò¥¨Ð Ä£ œ¢Ð¢µ¤. In that it is further recorded as ¨ˆ¶¢Ð¹ø¤¨Ð ›¡ô›õ®Ð«
(6)
ƒ©Àô« 5000/-- ñ¥œ, •ˆ¨· ö¡š›¹ø¤¨Ð ›¡ô›õ®Ð¹þ ƒ©Àô« 15,000/-- ñ¥œ. Ext.P4 is copy of Advocate Notice issued to first opposite party and postal receipt. Ext.P5 is acknowledgement card. With the available evidence it can be concluded that the alleged accident occurred only because of deficiency in service on the part of first opposite party. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned we are accepting the report of the surveyor which comes to Rs.10,687/-.
Let us examine whether the third opposite party is liable to indemnify the first opposite party. The Assistant Manager of opposite party 3 was examined as DW1. Opposite party 1 was examined as DW2. Policy and policy conditions marked as Ext.D1. Fire report as Ext.D2. Survey report as Ext.D3 and LPG accident report as Ext.D4. DW2 has deposed before the Forum that as per Section VI of Policy opposite party 3 is liable to indemnify the first opposite party. Further he has stated that accident coverage is optional. Further he would swear before the form that Section VI •›¤öñ¢µ® public liability cover ¨à¤¼¤Ù® . The Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant has produced judgment dated: 16-06-2011 in Appeal No.626/10 of our Hon’ble CDRC in a similar case where it has been held that the third opposite party is liable to indemnify the first opposite party. Like in that case in the version submitted at first the third opposite party has admitted coverage but alleged that the first opposite party has not complied with the formality of supplying the required documents. Now all the documents have been filed in this case. Hence we find that the third opposite party is liable to indemnify the first opposite party. The complainant will be
(7)
entitled for the amount of compensation as well as interest at 9 % from the date of
complaint.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the third opposite party to make the payment to the complainant within three months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest at 12 per cent from the date of this order.
Dated this the 13th day of March 2012
G.Vasanthakumari :Sd/-
Adv.Ravi Susha :Sd/-
R.Vijayakumar :Sd/-
INDEX
List of witness for the complainant
PW1 - Ibrahimkutty
List of documents for the complainant
P1 - Cash bill dated: 16-05-2000
P2 - GD Extract of Kollam East Police Station dated: 5-5-2002
P3 - Fire report
P4 - Copy of Advocate Notice
P5 - Acknowledgment card
List of witness for the opposite party
DW1 - R.Ashok kumar
DW2 - Sherry Jacob
List of documents for the opposite party
D1 - Policy and policy conditions
D2 - Fire Report
D3 - Survey Report
D4 - LPG Accident Report
