Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

23/2010

R.Devanathan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sakthi Gas Agencies, HP Gas Distribution - Opp.Party(s)

T.Ravikumar

24 Sep 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 11.01.2010

                                                                          Date of Order : 24.09.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.23/2010

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018

                                 

1. R. Devanathan,

S/o. Mr. Raju Pillai,

 

2. Ms. Gomathi,

D/o. Mr. R. Devanathan,

 

3. D. Kishore (Minor),

S/o. Mr. Devanathan,

Represented by Father and Guardian 1^st complainant,

(The 3^rd complainant died on 21.10.2013

recorded by Memo order dated:04.02.2015)

 

All are residing at:-

No.2, M G Nagar,

Poonamallee,

Chennai – 600 056.                                                      .. Complainants.                                                    

 

    ..Versus..

1. Sakthi Gas Agencies,

H P Gas Distributors,

No.5, Muthu Nagar,

Poonamallee,

Chennai – 600 056.

 

2. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,

Represented by its Manager,

South Zone LPG SBU,

Thalamuthu Natarajan Building,

No.8, Gandhi Irwin Road,

Egmore,

Chennai – 600 008. 

 

3. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,

Represented by its Director,

Corporate Head Quarters,

Petroleum House,

No.17, Jameshedji Tata Road,

Mumbai – 400 020,

Maharasthra.                                                     ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainants                    : M/s. T. Ravi Kumar & another

Counsel for 1^st opposite party             : Mr. S. Kuppan

Counsel for 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties: Mr. K. Ravi Anantha           

                                                                Padmanaban

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainants against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony due to the death of 1^st complainant’s wife Mrs. Kasturi and to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation for the purpose of having to employ a domestic help for the next 10 years, to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the amount spent towards the repairs to the house and with cost, professional charges and other miscellaneous charges of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants.

 

 

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainants submit that the 1^st complainant is the subscriber of LPG gas connection and his consumer number is 600038.  The 1^st opposite party, the dealer of LPG gas who purchases gas refill cylinders.   The opposite parties 2 & 3 are the manufacturers of LPG.  The complainants submit that on 09.06.2008, the 1^st complainant booked for refilled gas which was supplied on 20.06.2008. The complainants further submit that on 26.06.2008, at about 4.45 a.m. the 1^st complainant’s wife and 2^nd & 3^rd complainant’s mother Mrs. Kumari woke up in the early morning for preparing tea and while ignited the stove, the leakage in the gas cylinder supplied by the 1^st opposite party developed fire caused serious injuries to Mrs. Kumari resulting succumbed to the burn injuries on 29.06.2008 evenafter the administration of emergency treatment and medicines in Sri Ramachandra Medical College Hospital, Chennai.

2.     The complainants further state that immediately after the accidental fire, due intimation was given to the Police Station, Poonamallee. The police registered a complaint in Crime No.483/2008 U/S 174 Cr P C and thereafter, the police filed express report altering the provision of offence.   Further the complainants contended that immediately after the Fire accident, Mrs. Kumari was taken to Sri Ramachandra Medical College Hospital for treatment evenafter administration of life saving medical treatment, the victim Mrs. Kumari succumbed to injury.  The police after due investigation, recorded the nature of the accident in detail.  The accident happened due to the supply of defective cylinder by the 1^st opposite party which was manufactured by the opposite parties 2 & 3.  The victim Mrs. Kumari was the sole care taker of the entire family of the complainants.  Due to the sudden sad demise of Mrs. Kumari caused great mental agony to the complainants causing great hardship and irreparable loss.  The 1^st complainant have no alternative to compensate the place of deceased Mrs. Kumari since the complainants 2 & 3  are growing children suffered domestic  help and motherly protection.   The act of the opposite parties cause great loss and untold mental agony to the complainants. Hence the complainants issued legal notice dated:20.06.2009.   The 1^st opposite party sent a reply notice dated:25.08.2009 but did not come forward to settle the demands of the complainants.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  1^st opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainants to strict proof of the same.    The 1^st opposite party submits that it is not aware of the so called fire (Cylinder burst) accident which was supplied by the agency as set out in the complaint as well as the legal notice which was sent by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party till date of the notice which was served on the 1^st opposite party.   The 1^st opposite party further submits that the cylinder and the regulator which are being supplied by the Agency to the customer / consumer are the Government properties, if the properties involved or through which the 1^st accident happened it would be immediately informed to the agency concerned since the agency is the immediate investigating and enquiry authority on the spot of the accident occurred.  The 1^st opposite party submits that if it is so found that the accident took place due to the lack of service of damaged cylinder even as set out in the complaint it would be noted down by the Agency concerned and thereafter it will be immediately informed to the HP Company Limited, for further action, and to make an arrangement to get benefit and claims for the fire accident happened due to the burst of gas cylinder, which were supplied by the Agency of the Company concerned because the 1^st opposite party agency having insurance assistance if whenever the fire accident happened due to the burst of cylinder in an unavoidable circumstances to compensate the aggrieved customers.  To that effect, already the 1^st opposite party had sent a detailed reply dated:20.06.2001 to the complainants.   While the fact is so, what prevented the complainants to inform to the 1^st opposite party the so called fire accident which happened in the complainant premises due to the burst of the gas cylinder.  That nearly after passing a year of time, the complainants has preferred even to send the legal notice and thereafter the present complaint.   The 1^st opposite party submits that if the fire accident was happened due to the burst of gas cylinder definitely the cylinder would be in several pieces or atleast it would be damaged and the regulator also would be damaged.    The 1^st opposite party further submits that no enquiry was conducted by the police authority or by any others.  Hence without cause of action or any defect on the part of the 1^st opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the 2^nd & 3^rd  opposite parties is as follows:

The 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainants to strict proof of the same.   The 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties state that the 1^st complainant is a subscriber of LPG with the 1^st opposite party for the past 18 years.   The 1^st complainant booked for a refill on 09.06.2008, he got delivery of the cylinder on 20.06.2008.   There was a leakage in the cylinder due to which, the gas got spread in the kitchen.  On 26.06.2008, when the 1^st complainant’s wife opened the refrigerator to fetch milk, the fire got ignited and it engulfed the kitchen.  As a result, his wife died on 29.06.2008 at a hospital.   The 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties state that the above complaint is barred by limitation, if the death occurred in 29.06.2006 as stated by the 1^st complainant.   The narration of events would show that after receiving the refilled gas cylinder on 20.06.2008, there was a leakage in the gas cylinder according to the complainants.  If so, they should have immediately alerted the Gas Agency viz. the 1^st opposite party who in turn could have rectified it.  Admittedly, this has not been done in this case.   Secondly, assuming for a moment that the fire broke out in the early morning of 26.06.2008 when the 1^st complainant’s wife opened the refrigerator on account of which the gas was ignited, all the opposite parties should have been informed at once or thereafter within the reasonable time by the complainants.   But none of the opposite parties  had been informed about the accident at all. 

5.     Further the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite party state that almost a year later, the opposite parties were informed through a legal notice dated:20.06.2009 for the alleged accident that took place on 26.06.2008.  Thirdly, it is alleged that the refilled cylinder was in the kitchen.  If so, when the flames engulfed the kitchen, the gas cylinder and the regulator atleast  must have been blackened and regulator would have been melted in the heat.  In such a situation, had the complainants informed the opposite parties at once, the opposite parties would have investigated the cause of fire and concluded the issue.  On contrary, it is surprising to note that without any demur or complaint, the 1^st complainant booked for a refill on 20.09.2008 and the same was supplied on 01.10.2008 and exchanged cylinder alleged to have caused the accident for the subsequent supply and there was no symptom of any fire in the gas cylinder, received from the complainants in replacement of refill, and / or the regulator.  Assuming but not admitting that the fire took place on account of gas leakage from the gas cylinder the complainants should have informed the 1^st opposite party – Gas Agency at the earliest while booking for the next refill.   As per practice all the staff carrying the gas cylinder check for any leakage while delivering the cylinder as such there was no deficiency nor delay in service in any manner caused by any of the opposite parties.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

6.   To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainants has filed proof affidavit as their evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 1^st, 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties is filed and no documents filed and marked on the side of the 1^st, 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties. 

7.      The points for consideration is:-  

1. Whether the complainants entitled to a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony for the death of Kasthuri as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainants entitled to a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation for employing domestic servant and Rs.2,00,000/- expended towards repair of the house with cost of Rs.50,000/- as prayed for?

8.      On point:-

Both complainants and opposite parties 2 & 3 filed their respective written arguments.  The 1^st opposite party has not filed any written arguments and has not turned up to advance any oral arguments also.   Heard the complainants and opposite parties 2 & 3 Counsel also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc. The complainants pleaded and contended that 1^st complainant is the subscriber of LPG gas connection No.600038 as per Ex.A5 from the 1^st opposite party who is the dealer of LPG gas refill cylinders.   The opposite parties 2 & 3 are the manufacturers of LPG.   Further the contention of the complainants is that on 09.06.2008, the 1^st complainant booked for refilled gas which was supplied on 20.06.2008 as per Ex.A6.  The complainants further contended that on 26.06.2008, at about 4.45 a.m. the 1^st complainant’s wife and 2^nd & 3^rd complainant’s mother Mrs. Kumari woke up in the early morning for preparing tea and while ignited the stove, the leakage in the gas cylinder supplied by the 1^st opposite party developed fire caused serious injuries to Mrs. Kumari resulting succumbed to the burn injuries on 29.06.2008 evenafter the administration of life saving medicines in Sri Ramachandra Medical College Hospital, Chennai. The complainant has expended a huge sum of Rs.1,47,832.45 towards medical expenses.  Ex.A1 is the statement of hospital expenses.  Ex.A2 series are the medical bills.   Ex.A3 is the expenses incurred towards transportation. 

9.     The learned Counsel for the complainants further contended that immediately after the accidental fire, due intimation was given to the Police Station, Poonamallee. The police registered a complaint in Crime No.483/2008 U/S 174 Cr P C and thereafter, the police filed express report altering the provision of offence.  Ex.A12 is the F.I.R. copy.  Ex.A8 is the report to Thashildar, Poonamallee by Sub-Inspector which shows very clearly that the victim Mrs. Kumari met with the fire accident.   Ex.A7 is the Death Certificate.   Ex.A8 is the report of the Thashildar.   Ex.A9 is the death report issued by Sri Ramachandra Hospital.   Ex.A10 is the Post Mortem Certificate.  Ex.A11 is the death report of police.  All these documents were conjointly speak about the nature of the accidental fire and treatment to the victim Mrs. Kumari resulting succumbed to injuries.  The police after due investigation, recorded the nature of the accident in detail. 

10.    Further the learned Counsel for the complainants contended that the accident happened due to the supply of defective cylinder by the 1^st opposite party which was manufactured by the opposite parties 2 & 3.  The victim Mrs. Kumari was the sole care taker of the entire family of the complainants.  Due to the sudden sad demise of Mrs. Kumari caused great mental agony to the complainants causing great hardship and irreparable loss.  The 1^st complainants have no alternative to compensate the place of deceased Mrs. Kumari since the complainants 2 & 3  are growing children suffered domestic  help and motherly protection.   The complainants are claiming a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation for keeping a domestic servant in the rest of the years. The complainants are also claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony since the 1^st complainant lost his beloved wife and 2^nd complainant lost her affectionate expenses incurred for transportation, medical expenses and funeral expenses including repair to the house.   But on a careful perusal of records, it is seen that there is no scope of any damage to the building due to this fire accident.  Equally, the claim towards the transportation to the hospital is exorbitant.   The complainants has produced medical bills and hospital expense to the tune of Rs.1,84,303/- Ex.A3 is the  bill related to transportation to the hospital shows Rs.9400/- towards permit charges Rs.10,000/-  for two night halts are imaginary and is not permissible.   The complainants are entitled due compensation for consortium, mental agony, love and affection etc.

11.    The learned Counsel for the 1^st opposite party contended that the 1^st opposite party is not aware of the so called fire (Cylinder burst) accident which was supplied by the agency as set out in the complaint as well as the legal notice which was sent by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party till date of the notice which was served on the 1^st opposite party.   The 1^st opposite party further contended that the cylinder and the regulator which are being supplied by the Agency to the customer / consumer are the Government properties, if the properties involved or through which the 1^st accident happened it would be immediately informed to the agency concerned since the agency is the immediate investigating and enquiry authority on the spot of the accident occurred.  But it is seen from the records that due intimation was given to policy immediately who is duty bound to inform the Insurance Agency and F.I.R. was registered which is a public document amounts to notice.  The 1^st opposite party further contended that nearly after passing a year of time, the complainants preferred to send the legal notice and thereafter the present complaint also.   If the fire accident was happened due to the burst of gas cylinder definitely the cylinder would be in several pieces or atleast it would be damaged and the regulator also would be damaged.   The 1^st opposite party further contended that no enquiry was conducted by the police authority or by any other agencies.   But on a careful perusal of records, it is seen that the cause of death is due to burn injuries.

12.    Further the contention of 1^st opposite party is that the complainant and the victim shall take safety precaution at the relevant time from the inception of delivery of cylinder.  There shall be any leakage if any it should be informed immediately to the gas agency within 6 to 9 days.   Nobody shall keep quiet when there is a leakage of gas in the cylinder.  But in this case, there is no evidence on the part of the 1^st opposite party that he has delivered the gas cylinder after due check up in the presence of the complainant or the victim by the prescribed test.   Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that without giving information from the inception of the occurrence the 1^st opposite party shall be fastened liability of negligence.  But on a careful perusal of records, it is seen that immediately after the accidental fire due police report was given and FIR was registered which is a public document amounts to notice.   It is the duty of the police to inform the insurance company and the manufacturer of gas cylinder.   Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that the compensation claimed is exorbitant. 

13.    The learned Counsel for the opposite parties 2 & 3 contended that admittedly, the complainants received the refilled cylinder.  If there is any leakage in the cylinder, the complainants should have informed the 1^st opposite party on the same day.  Neither the complainants nor the victim has not complained anything about the defect in the cylinder till 29.06.2008 But on a careful perusal of records, the 1^st opposite party has not supplied the refilled cylinder after due check up with the complainants and the victim. Further the contention of the opposite parties 2 & 3 is that if the accident has caused because of the leakage in the cylinder the regulator must have been blackened and the regulator would have melted.   But the opposite parties has not produced any such settled proposition in this case to prove such factum.   Further the contention of the opposite parties 2 & 3 is that the complainants has not informed the accident immediately but police report given and FIR registered.  The complainants booked the refill gas on 20.09.2008 without any demur or complaint.  The old cylinder did not show any symptom of fire in the cylinder.  Hence the entire allegation are false and is an invented story.   Further the contention of the opposite parties 2 & 3 is that the postmortem report and other records speaks that the cause of death is due to burn injury.  The complainants wants to take a chance through this Forum by illegally alleging gas leak story.  

14.    Further the contention of the opposite parties 2 & 3 is that the victim might have died during the course of self emulation inside the house.    But on a careful perusal of Ex.A12, investigation report it reads as follows:

9. ,d;d fhuzj;jpdhy; kuzk; Neupl;ljhf Njhd;WfpwJ.

Apparent cause of death.

        26.06.2008 md;W fhiy 04.45 kzpf;f jpUkjp. Fkhup jd; tPl;by; rikay; miwapy fhg;gp NghLtjw;F Nf]; ];lt;it gw;witj;jNghJ Nf]; frptpd; fhuzkhf jP gw;wp Fkhupapd; Nriyapy; gl;L> cly; KOtJk; jPf;fhak; Vw;gl;L SRMC kUj;Jtkidapy; jPg;Gz;thu;by; cs;Nehahspahf rpfpr;ir ngw;Wte;jtu;.  rpfpr;if gyd; mspf;fhky; 29.06.2008 fhiy 05.45 kzpapy; ,we;Jtpl;lhu;.  Fkhupapd; ,e;j rikay; Nf]; frptpdhy; jPg;gw;wp rpfpr;ir gyd; mspf;fhky; ,we;Js;shu; vd;W gQ;rhaj;jhu;fs; Mfpa ehq;fs; mgpg;gpuhag;gLfpNwhk;.

15. ,d;d fhuzj;jpdhYk; ,d;d khjpupahfTk; kuzk; Neupl;lnjd;gJ tp\akha; gQ;rhaj;J egu;fspd; mgpg;gpuhak;.

Opinion of the panchayatdars as to cause and manner of death.

jpUkjp. Fkhup 26.06.2008 fhiy 04.45 kzpf;f jd;tPl;by; fhg;gp NghLtjw;fhf Nf]; ];lt;it gw;witj;jNghJ Nf];frptpd; fhuzkhf jPg;gw;wp jPf;fhaq;fSld; SRMC kUj;Jtkid jPf;fha thu;by; rpfpr;ir ngw;W te;jtu; rpfpr;ir gyd; mspf;fhky; 29.06.2008 fhiy 05.45 kzpf;F ,we;Js;shu;.  jpUkjp. Fkhupapd; kuzkhdJ jPtpgj;jpdhy; Vw;gl;lJ vd njupatUfpd;wJ.

15.   In Ex.A10, Opinion in Post Mortem Report reads as follows:

“The deceased would appear to have died due to complications of thermal injury sustained”.

And in Ex.A8, report to the Tahshildar, Poonamallee by Sub-Inspector of Police proves that the allegation of emulation is false and imaginary.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that  the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical bill and hospital expenses and a sum of Rs.50,000/-  towards domestic expenses with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) towards compensation for mental agony, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) towards medical bill and hospital expenses and a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) towards compensation for employing domestic servant  with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainants.

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 24^th day of September 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANTS SIDE DOCUMENTS:

		Copy of statement showing expenses incurred
		Copy of medical bills
		Copy of transportation charges of the deceased Kumari’s body
		Copy of bills for the repair of the complainant’s house
		Copy of the complainant’s gas Consumer Book
		Copy of the consumer slip for sale of refill
		Copy of Death Certificate
		Copy of report to Tahshildar Poonamallee by Sub Inspector, Poonamalee
		Copy of Death Report of the hospital
		Copy of Post Mortem Report
		Copy of Death Report of Police
		Copy of First Information Report
		Copy of notice with acknowledgement cards
		Copy of reply notice of the 1st opposite party

 

1^ST OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS: NIL

2^ND & 3^RD OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS: NIL

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT