IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 30th day of September, 2015
Filed on 8.3.2013
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt. Jasmine.D (Member)
in
C.C.No.99/2013
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Thomas Palliparambil 1. Proprietor, Vallakkalil Gas Agency
Punnapra Panchayath Thiruvampady, Alappzuha
Ward No. 17, Alappuzha (By Adv. S. Murukan)
(By Adv. M. Sunilkumar)
2. Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Bharath Bhavan, No.2, Ballard Estate
P.B. No.688, Mumbai – 400 038
(By Adv. Ganesh Kumar)
3.IFFCO – Tokio General Insurance
5th Floor, Asra Building, Water filled
Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
Complainant is a subscriber of domestic gas connection with the second opposite party through first opposite party. On 29.3.2011 at about 12.20 p.m. the house of the complainant got fire and destroyed completely along with house hold articles including the cloth of all the members of the house certificates Sale Deed 30,000/- Rupees, 1 Sovereign of Gold ornament, etc. The accident was happened due to the leakage of gas from the cylinder valve when the wife of the complainant try to set fire in the stow burner. The accident was happened due to the rash and negligent bottling of gas by the second opposite party which facilitated leakage of gas from the cylinder valve. The accident was informed to the police and fire force authorities. They came to the spot and tried their level best to extinguish the fire. But everything was in vain. Their timely intervention avoided the spreading of fire to the neighbouring houses. The Punnapra Police have registered a case on the same day regarding this incident as Crime No. 214/2011. The act of the opposite parties is a serious deficiency in service. No compensation is given to the complainant till this date. Hence the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the first opposite party is as follows:-
The allegation that the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent bottling of the gas by the second opposite party which resulted in the leakage of the cylinder wall is denied. There was no defect in the cylinder was perfectly normal. There were no manufacturing or other defects in the cylinder. The customer has never reported any leakage. The last refill change by the customer was done on 22.3.2011 and the cylinder was in use from then. From the site conditions and the LPG installation status, the fire has no taken place because of LPG equipment and there was no evidence for LPG leakage. The negligence of the complainant is not keeping the building in good condition might be the reason for the accident and the opposite parties are not liable to compensate the complainant for the damages if any caused to the complainant. There is absolutely no material or basis for the claim of damages and the claim is highly exorbitant. There was no defect in the cylinder which could cause leakage from it. The opposite party is not at all liable to answer any of the relief claimed.
3. The version of the second opposite party is as follows:-
The relation between the first opposite party and second opposite party is principal to principal.The second opposite party is not liable for responsible for any loss, injury, damage to the distributor or to the customers, their service agents, employees etc.The negligence of the complainant themselves in not keeping the building in good condition might be the reason for the accident and the opposite parties are not liable to compensate the complaint for the damages if any cause to the complainant.There is absolutely no material or basis for the claim of damages and the claim is highly exorbitant.First opposite party is liable to indemnify the second opposite party against the claims covered under present complaint.Even if any deficiency or any defects in service or goods is established and such claim is liable to be recovered directly from the insurance company.
4. As per the petition filed by the complainant the IFFCO – Tokio General Insurance company is impleaded as the additional third opposite party. Notice issued against the additional third opposite party is served. But they did not turn up, hence the additional third opposite party is set ex-parte.
5. The complainant was examined as PW1.Documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A5.First opposite party was examined as RW1.Second opposite party was examined as RW2.The documents were produced were marked as Exts.B1 and B2.
6. The points came up for considerations are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so the reliefs and costs?
7. Point No.1:- It is an admitted fact that complainant is a subscriber of domestic gas connection with the second opposite party through the first opposite party. According to the complainant on 29.3.2013 at about 12.30 p.m. his house got fire and destroyed completely along with house hold articles including the cloth of all members of the house, certificates, sale deed, 30,000/- rupees, one sovereign of gold ornament etc. He also alleged that the accident was happened due to the leakage of the gas from the cylinder valve when the wife of the complainant tried to set fire in the stove burner. The first and second opposite parties filed version denying the allegations of the complainant. According to the opposite parties 1 and 2 the negligence of the wife of the complainant in not keeping the building in good condition might be the reason for the accident and the opposite parties are not liable to compensate the complainant for the damages if any caused to him.
8. In order to substantiate the allegations of the complainant, complainant had produced documents which marked as Exts.A1 to A5. Ext. A1 is the F.I.S and Ext. A2 is the report prepared by the Fire Force Authority. In Ext.A2 clearly stated that, “
Ext.A4 the report prepared by the Electrical Inspector is also supporting the allegations of the complainant. In order to controvert the evidence adduced by the complainant no documentary evidence adduced by the opposite parties. Hence from the evidence on record we are of opinion that incident took place due to the leakage of gas cylinder. It is an admitted fact that 1st opposite party is the distributor of the LPG cylinder filled by the second opposite party. Since the accident occurred due to the leakage of gas cylinder, the second opposite party is vicariously liable to compensate the complainant. The inordinate delay in giving compensation to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. Since the accident took place due to the leakage of gas cylinder, the supply of LPG in such kind of cylinder cannot be said to be an act of negligence or omission on the part of the distributor, but constitute an act of negligence on the part of the second opposite party. According to the second opposite party they have taken insurance covering the risk of accident from the third opposite party under policy No. 41013839 for the period from 22.4.2010 to 21.4.2011. The said policy copy was produced by the second opposite party and was marked as Ext.B1. In Ext.B1 under the head details of insurance, it is stated that, “Liability at Law for compensation and claimants cost and expenses in respect of any accident resulting in death or bodily injury to any person or damage to property in connection with Trade Business of insured, such accident occurring at: (e) Whilst arising out of the use of LPG.” Even though the IFFCO – Tokio General Insurance Company was impleaded as additional third opposite party they did not file vakalath or version. As per Ext.B1 the risk stood covered from 22.4.2010 to 21.04.2011. The alleged incident was on 29.3.2011. Hence we are of opinion that the insurance company is liable to indemnify the second opposite party.
9. Point No.2:- Complainant claimed a sum of Rs.2 lakhs with interest towards cost of articles and house lost by him, Rs.5,000/- towards expenses and Rs.1 lakh inconvenience and mental agony caused to the complainant. Ext.A1 shows that the estimate value of loss of the complainant is Rs.2 lakhs from the opposite parties. Accordingly we are of view that complainant is entitled to get Rs. 2 lakhs from the opposite parties. The complainant is also entitled to get an amount on account of mental agony suffered by him.
In the result the complaint is allowed. The second opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with 9% interest per annum from the date of incident towards compensation for the loss suffered by the complainant. The second opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. We further order that the second opposite party shall have the right to recover from third opposite party the IFFCO – Tokio General Insurance Company, any amount of money which he may have already paid or may have to pay in execution of this order, by seeking execution of this very order. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me an pronounced
in open Forum on this the 30th day of September, 2015.
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine. D. (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Thomas (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the first information report
Ext.A2 - Statement of Fire Force
Ext.A3 - Copy of the site mahazor
Ext.A4 - Letter dated 4.11.2011
Ext.A5 - Copy of the paper cutting of news paper
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - K. Muraleedharan (Witness)
RW2 - N.P. Aravindakshan (Witness) 01
Ext.B1 - Copy of the public liability policy for LPG
Ext.B2 - LPG Accident report (Subject to objection)
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
