Haryana

Jind

216/11

Miss Anjli Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Safidon Gas Services - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. A.K. Batra

12 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.

                                           Complaint No. 216 of 2011

   Date of Institution: 19.5.2011

   Date of final order: 16.1.2015

 

Miss Anjli minor daughter of Vinod Kumar s/o Sh. Bhim Sain @ Bhim Singh r/o ward No.2, Holi Mohalla, Safidon, District Jind through her next friend her father Mr. Vinod Kumar natural guardian of the minor.     

                                                                    ….Complainant.

                                       Versus

1.     Safidon Gas Service Bal Bhavan Shopping complex, Safidon,

        District Jind (Haryana) through its Prop./partner.

2.     Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (M.D.) Indian Area office, Kohand-

        Assandh road village Gudha, District Karnal(Haryana) through

 its Incharge/Area Manager.

3.     National Insurance Company Limited Branch office Jind through

        its Branch Manager.

                                                                 …..Opposite parties.

                          Complaint under section 12 of

 

Before:      Sh. Hari Singh Khokhar, President.

                Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.

               

Present:     Sh. A.K. Batra, Adv. for  complainant.

                Sh. P.K. Gupta, Adv. for  opposite party No.1.

                Sh. K.K. Mittal Adv. for opposite party No.2.

                Sh. J.B. Goyal Adv. for opposite party No.3.

            

ORDER:

        The brief facts in the complaint are thatSh. Bhim Sain @ Bhim Singh s/o Chunni Lal r/o ward No.3 Holi Mohalla, Safidon is consumer of Indian Gas vide S.V. No.3607409 consumer No.SG-800 of the opposite parties No.1 and 2. The complainant is grand daughter  

                        Anjali  Vs.  Safidon Gas etc.

                                  …2…

of Bhim Singh and was beneficiary/user of said LPG Gas  with her father and grand father because of joint living in one and the same house. The  grand father of complainant had booked refilled LPG Indane Gas Cylinder with opposite party No.1 which was supplied on 11.9.2009. The earlier LPG Cylinder was consumed and became empty on 19.9.2009 so the  father of complainant tried to replace the said empty LPG cylinder with the refilled LPG cylinder. But as soon as the cap of refilled LPG cylinder was opened to connect the same with the regulator all of a sudden the LPG gas started leaking with a bang , the cylinder was found defective having no safety pin. Huge LPG gas was spread all over in the kitchen as well as in the house of complainant. Vinod Kumar father of  complainant immediately put the cap back on the cylinder and immediately shifted the cylinder outside in the open place in the street. But soon thereafter a blast took place inside the hosue of the complainant resulting which the house of complainant was damaged, roof and walls collapsed. Due to blast Smt. Kamlesh@ Chanchal wife of Chander Parkash was died and severe burn injuries to the complainant as well as  to her father Vinod Kumar and to several other persons. The complainant as well as other injured persons were shifted to General Hospital Safidon from where they were shifted to Lala Har Bhagwan Dass Memorial & Doctor Prem Hospital, Panipat. Smt. Kamlesh died in the hospital whereas the complainant is still taking treatment of burn injuries. The complainant remained admitted as indoor patient in ICU as well as private wards in hospitals from 19.9.2009 to 9.10.2009 and 28.10.2009 to 5.11.2009.  

                        Anjali  Vs.  Safidon Gas etc.

                                  …3…

The complainant also remained indoor patient in Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi w.e.f. 13.10.2009 to 1.12.2009 and again from 9.8.2010 to 16.8.2010. Mr. R.K. Jain,Surveyor of opposite party No.3 collected all the documents  from the complainant’s grand father. The opposite parties assuring the complainant with suitable compensation but neither the claim of the complainant has been accepted nor repudiated the claim. The complainant served a legal notice dated 10.3.2011 through her counsel Sh. A.K. Batra Adv.  upon the opposite parties but all in vain. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant.

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties have appeared and filed the separate written statement. Opposite party No.1 has contended that the complainant has not hired any service from answering opposite party, hence there is no question of rendering any defective services to the complainant. The refill cylinder was supplied by the answering opposite party to the complainant. The gas cylinder was checked by the complainant in the presence of deliveryman of answering opposite party. The cylinder was found OK and there was no leakage of gas in the cylinder nor there was any defect of any kind in the cylinder. All the other allegations have been denied by the answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with special costs is prayed for.

3.     Opposite party No.2 has contended that he has fully insured with National Insurance Company vide public liability insurance policy

                        Anjali  Vs.  Safidon Gas etc.

                                  …4…

No.251100/46/09/9500000002 for the period w.e.f. 22.4.2009 to 21.4.2010. The opposite party No.1 distributor/ dealer is responsible for delivery, supply, distribution and installation of cylinders including undertaking all the mandatory checking at the time of installation of cylinder connection in the area. The transaction between the opposite party is on principal to principal basis and opposite party No.1 is responsible for the safety of the cylinders in its possession. Deliveryman of the distributor is required to check cylinder leakage at customer place by breaking upon the seal and removing plastic cap and connecting the cylinder to the hot plant. The cylinder was supplied by the opposite party No.1 to the grand father of the complainant. The gas cylinder was checked by the grand father of  complainant in his presence. The cylinder was found OK and there was no leakage of gas in the cylinder nor there was any defect of the cylinder. All the other allegations have been denied by the answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with special costs is prayed for.

4.     Opposite party No.3 has contended in the preliminary objections i.e. the complainant has no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint and the complaint is false, frivolous, malicious and vexatious. On merits, it is contended that the complainant has put forth a totally false, manipulated and concocted story just to obtain the amount of compensation from the answering opposite party. Every gas cylinder is checked by the consumer at the time of taking delivery in presence of employees of opposite party No.1. The above said

                        Anjali  Vs.  Safidon Gas etc.

                                  …5…

cylinder was also found O.K. and there was no leakage nor it was defective in any manner. Mr. R.K. Jain, surveyor and loss assessor was deputed by the answering opposite party to conduct the survey of spot and assess the loss. He submitted his report dated 3.4.2010 and assessed the net calculated loss of Rs.3,83,832/-.  It is specifically stated here that alleged occurrence took place due to sole negligence and fault on the part of Vinod Kumar due to mishandling of L.P.Gas cylinder and not following the safety measures, hence the amount of compensation is not payable to the complainant, her  father Vinod Kumar or her grand father Sh. Bhim Singh. All the other allegations have been denied by the answering opposite party. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with special costs is prayed for.

5.     In evidence the complainant has produced her own affidavit Ex. C-1,  copy of legal notice Ex. C-2, envelope Ex. C-3, postal receipts Ex. C-4 to C-6, acknowledgment Ex. C-7 and documents Ex. C-8 to C-179 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the opposite parties have produced the affidavit of Sh. Umed Singh Dhull Ex. OP-1, copy of policy Ex. OP-2, copy of customer history card Ex. OP-3, copy of document Ex. OP-4, copy of ration card Ex. OP-5, copy of news paper cutting Ex. OP-6, copy of application Ex. OP-7, copy of affidavit of Satbir Ex. OP-8, copy of affidavit of Kaptan Singh Ex. OP-9, copy of  affidavit of Puran Chand Ex. OP-10, copy of affidavit of Ram Saroop Ex.  OP-11, copy of letter dated 16.3.2011 Ex. OP-12, copy of LPG accident report Ex. OP-13, affidavit of Sh. S.K. Behal Ex. OP-14, LPG

                        Anjali  Vs.  Safidon Gas etc.

                                  …6…

Traders Combined policy Ex. OP-15, copy of policy Ex. OP-16, affidavit of  Sh. Amarjeet Singh Ex. OP-17, copy of letter dated 5.5.2009 Ex. OP-18 and copy of agreement Ex. OP-19 and closed the evidence. 

6.       We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. Bhim Sain @ Bhim Singh is consumer of Indane Gas vide consumer No. SG-800 of the opposite party No.1 and 2. The complainant is grand daughter of said Bhim Singh and was beneficiary/user of said LPG gas with her father and grand father because of joint living in one and the same house.  The complainant’s grand father had booked refilled LPG Indane gas cylinder with the opposite party No.1 which was supplied on 11.9.2009. On 19.9.2009 at about 10.45 A.M., Vinod Kumar  father  of the complainant tried to change the aforesaid cylinder with the old one.  But as soon as the cap of refilled LPG cylinder was opened, the LPG gas started leaking with a bang and spread all over in the kitchen as well as in the house of complainant. The father of complainant Vinod Kumar immediately put the cap back on the LPG cylinder and immediately shifted the cylinder outside in the open place in the

street. But a blast took place inside the house of the complainant. Complainant, his father Vinod Kumar and other persons sustained burn injuries. House  was damaged, roof and walls collapsed and one Smt. Kamlesh @ Chanchal wife of Chander Parkash, who  was neighbourer of the complainant died due to blast. The complainant sustained deep thermal burns over majority of her body. The complainant remained indoor patient in ICU as well as in private wards of Dr. Prem Hospital, Panipat from 19.9.2009 to 9.10.2009, 28.10.2009 to 5.11.2009, again from 13.10.2009 to 1.12.2009 and again from 9.8.2010 to 16.8.2010 in Safdarjing Hospital,

                             Anjali  Vs.  Safidon Gas etc.

                                  …7…

 

New Delhi. The complainant also took treatment for nasal bleeding and ENT complications from Gujjarmal Modi Hospital and Research Centre for Medical Sciences, three surgical operations were also conducted on her so far plastic surgery. According to the complainant, the fire causing loss was due to defect in the cylinder. The incident  of blast of fire was immediately reported to the police. The opposite party No.1 and 2 had obtained insurance policy from the opposite party No.3 in this regard, so the surveyor and investigator of the opposite party No.3 had also visited and obtained all the necessary

documents from the complainant. The opposite parties had been assuring the complainant with suitable compensation but so far not even a single penny has been paid to the complainant.

7.       On the other hand, the opposite party No.1 has submitted that the refill LPG cylinder was supplied to the complainant  by the answering opposite party. The gas cylinder was checked by the grand father of the complainant in the presence of deliveryman of opposite party No.1 and said cylinder was found O.K. and there was no leakage of gas in the cylinder nor there was any defect of any kind in the cylinder. The alleged incident in question took place due to negligence on the part of Vinod Kumar father of complainant. The opposite party No.2 has submitted that cylinder was supplied by the opposite party No.1. The cylinder was found O.K. and there was no leakage of gas cylinder nor there was any defect of any kind in the cylinder. The answering opposite party supplied cylinder on principal to principal basis and the

 

                        Anjali  Vs.  Safidon Gas etc.

                                  …8…

responsibility is that of the distributor after the cylinder are received by them. No Central Forensic Science Laboratory report was produced in evidence to show what went wrong. The opposite party No.2 has fully insured with National Insurance Company for the period w.e.f. 22.4.2009 to 21.4.2010. The opposite party No.3 submitted that Mr. R.K. Jain, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed by the opposite party who conduct the spot survey and assessed the loss. The surveyor submitted his report on dated 3.4.2010 thereby assessing calculated  amount of loss to the building of the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,06,352/- and loss of house hold goods to the tune of Rs.12,790/- and hospital expenses Rs.1,64,690/-  expenses on complainant is Rs.86146/- Ex. C-123.

8.     It was not disputed that the said gas cylinder was supplied by the opposite party No.1. The news about the said blast due to leakage of LPG gas cylinder in the house of complainant appeared in a number of National Newspaper i.e. Danik Jagran Ex. C-56 and Punjab Kashri Ex.C-55 are self explanatory regarding the said incident. As per affidavit of complainant Ex. C-1, when the cap of  the cylinder was opened by  the complainant, it started leaking with a bang and spread resulting in a blast and fire as a result there of the residential house of complainant sustained extensive damage and causing severe burn injuries to the complainant as well as to Vinod Kumar father of the complainant.. Ex. C-8 to C-27 and Ex.C-29 to C-178 are hospital slips.  The copy of the statement by the complainant’s grand father as handed

 

                        Anjali  Vs.  Safidon Gas etc.

                                  …9…

over to SDM, Safidon wherein he has briefed regarding the said blast in his residence due to leakage of LPG gas cylinder was produced in

evidence Ex. OP-7. The  statements duly notarized by the neighbourers i.e. Mr. Puran Chand s/o Nathu Ram Ex. C-49, Mr. Kaptan Singh s/o Chander Bhan Ex. C-50, Mr. Satbir s/o Chater Sigh Ex. C-51and Mr. Ram Saroop s/o Deshu Ex. C-52 regarding the said incident in the house due to severe blast occurred after leakage of gas from LPG gas cylinder were produced in evidence. The complainant and her father Vinod Kumar sustained burn injuries and both were immediately admitted in Doctor Prem Hospital at Panipat. The residential house have collapsed partially where heavy cracks have  also appeared in walls and roofs etc. of the complete house. The reason for the occurrence of the incident with the complainant was leakage of cylinder in the house.

9.     After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant sustained burn injuries due to negligence on the part of opposite parties. Deficiency in service is established on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is accepted and the opposite parties No.1to3 are directed jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.86,146/- medical expenses as assessed by the surveyor. This order be complied  within one month after receiving the certified copy of this order. In case of failure, the  opposite  parties   will pay  a  simple  interest

 @ 9%  p.a. to  the  complainant w.e.f.  filing  of the  complaint  

i.e. 19.5.2011  till  its  full  realization of  amount.  Parties  will

 

 

                        Anjali  Vs.  Safidon Gas etc.

                                  …10…

bear their own costs.  Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

  Announced on: 16.1.2015

                                                                President,

 Member                                District Consumer Disputes                                                                 Redressal Forum, Jind