Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

The relevant facts and circumstances of Appeal Nos. A/949/2017, A/950/2017, A/951/2017 and A/952/2017 being identical in nature, all these Appeals are disposed of through this common order.

In the wake of accidental injury/death of family members of the Respondent No. 1, necessary claims were lodged by him with the Respondent No. 2 through the Appellant.  However, the same being not settled, instant cases were filed.

All the Parties were heard through their respective Ld. Advocates and documents on record carefully gone through.

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that, when they faced difficulty in lighting the gas oven using the newly supplied gas cylinder of the Appellant, necessary complaint was lodged with the latter and acting on such complaint, a mechanic was sent by the Appellant to look after the problem.  While the said mechanic was trying to fix the problem, he accidentally sustained severe burn injury, so too some family members of the Respondent No. 1.  Subsequently, three of his family members succumbed to burn injuries and one of the injured family members is still undergoing treatment.  Holding the Appellant as well as other Respondents responsible for the tragic incident, the Ld. Advocate prayed for upholding the impugned order.

Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, on the other hand, submitted that a trained employee was deputed to the residence of the Respondent No. 1 to attend to his complaint.  After the tragic accident, qualified engineers of the Respondent No. 3 visited the house of the Respondent No. 1 and took several snaps of the site of accident.  During such inspection, it was found that, apart from the cylinder of the Respondent No. 3, the cylinder of another gas distribution company was there.  He claimed that, the Officer of the Respondent No. 3 did not find any defect in the cylinder in question.  It was noticed during such inspection that the Regulator attached to the cylinder did not belong to the Respondent No. 3.  The burner too did not conform to Bureau of Indian Standard and the rubber hose pipe was not bona fidely purchased from the Appellant.  He asserted that, had there been any defect in the said cylinder, the valve of the said cylinder would have oozed out from the said cylinder which was not the case here; clearly indicative of the fact that there was no defect in the subject cylinder. 

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 questioned the rational of awarding such high compensation in respect of injury sustained by Akrit Singh.  Besides, he raised serious objection for absolving the Respondent Nos.3&4 of all liabilities ignoring the fact that being the principal, the Respondent No. 3 as well as its Insurer could not abdicate vicarious liability in the matter.  He lastly submitted that public liability contract granted under the policy indemnifies a third party only if compensation is awarded as per law.  However, since the Ld. District Forum awarded compensation purely on sympathetic ground, it was not acceptable.

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 3 contended that on enquiry it was gathered that while the trained mechanic of the Appellant was attending to the complaint of the Respondent No. 1, fire incident occurred.  All the victims except the mechanic were outside the kitchen.   After inspection it was found that the cylinders had some quantity of gas and the pressure regulator was of HP. It was also found that the burner was connected to one Suraksha hose pipe with Indane Cylinder together with HP pressure regulator.  There was no sign of fire inside the kitchen on the next day of the incident.  The cylinder and pressure regulator were not affected. Only few burnt clothes were available on the floor.  The inspecting team found traces of black spot outside the kitchen.  It was further submitted that there was no chance of supplying defective cylinder by this Respondent since the supply was made by the Appellant after storing the cylinders at its own godown.  He asserted that, once the cylinders were handed over to the distributor after proper checking at various stages, it was the responsibility of the distributor to supply proper cylinder with quantity and quality to the end user.  In terms of the Distributorship Agreement, since the relationship between the parties (Appellant and Respondent No. 3) is that of principal to principal, it cannot be held responsible in any manner whatsoever.

It is seen from the PM reports that the victims died of burn injury.  Notwithstanding the Appellant accused Respondent No. 1 of violating several Regulatory norms, the inspection report prepared by the officials of the Respondent No. 3 did not attribute the accident to such alleged shortcomings. Moreover, whether the alleged shortcomings were indeed violative of Regulatory norms, no guideline to that effect is placed before us.

It is indeed strange that the Respondent No. 2 did not depute any independent Surveyor to inspect/assess the loss as was mandatory under the Insurance Act. 

Be that as it may, though it is strongly asserted by both the Ld. Advocates for the Appellant and Respondent No. 3 that there was no fault with the cylinder in question, in support of such tall claim, however, no detail technical analysis report is filed by them.  It is found that, no such prayer was made from their side before the Ld. District Forum to get the cylinder in question tested through any forensic laboratory.

Ld. Advocate for the Appellant and Respondent No. 3, in a bid to escape their liability in the matter, squarely blamed the Respondent No. 1 and his family members.  However, when the circumstantial evidences are put to perspective, it appears to be nothing but sheer wishful thinking on their part. 

It is though mentioned in the report that the inspecting officials of the Respondent No. 3, save and except some burnt clothes, did not find any sign of fire inside the kitchen, it remains baffling, while undisputedly the mechanic of the Appellant was inside the kitchen, how did he sustain maximum injury amongst other injured persons. It was but natural that, while the concerned mechanic was working in the kitchen to fix the problem, the fire incident took place inside the kitchen.  For some obscure reasons, the inspection report was not counter signed by any family members/neighbours of the Respondent No. 1. That apart, the concerned officials of the Respondent No. 3 had definite reason to prepare a biased report.  Therefore, no reliance can be placed on such one-sided unfounded report.

Documents on record amply prove the bona fide of the claim of the Respondent No. 1.  The fact that the mechanic of the Appellant sustained maximum injury while he was trying to resolve the problem complained of by the Respondent No. 1 leaves nothing to imagination that the accident occurred due to negligence of the concerned mechanic of the Appellant. For this simple reason, in our considered opinion, the Appellant and Respondent No. 2 cannot abdicate their liabilities.

It is claimed by the Respondent No. 3 that Debasish Majumder, since deceased, before his death stated that one minor child was playing with one LPG gas lighter just in front of the kitchen and somehow the same caught fire.  In this regard too, no hard proof is advanced from the side of the Appellant/Respondent No. 3. If that was indeed the case, the minor child would sustain grave burn injury which is not the case here. Since very few black and white photographs were placed on record, without seeing the photographs of every nook and corner of the kitchen in question, the claim of the Appellant/Respondent No. 3 that there was no trace of burning sign inside the kitchen cannot be accepted at its face value.

Respondent No. 2 though claimed that the amount claimed by the Respondent No. 1 for the treatment of Akrit Singh was very much on the higher side, it appears that he Respondent No. 1 has spent a considerable amount for his treatment so far, yet he has still not come round requiring him to undergo regular treatment. That apart, it was obligatory on the part of the Respondent No. 2 to settle the claims on its own instead of waiting for orders from any competent Court of Law.  By not discharging its contractual obligation, the Respondent No. 2 committed gross deficiency in service. Taking into consideration all these facts into perspective it appears to us that the compensation as fixed by the Ld. District Forum for the minor child was quite just and fair. 

In respect of 3 adult persons, who succumbed to burn injuries, the compensation as figured out by the Ld. District Forum also appears quite reasonable given that human life is precious.  While the accident took place owing to negligence of the mechanic of the Appellant and due compensation was not released on absolutely untenable grounds forcing a hapless consumer take legal recourse at high costs, the Appellant/Respondent No. 2 cannot evade their joint liability to pay the awarded sum [3 (2006) CPJ 8 (NC) relied upon]. 

The Ld. District Forum, it appears, on due consideration of the fact that the relationship between the Appellant and Respondent No. 3 was Principal to Principal, rightly exonerated the Respondent No. 3 from any liability in the matter. 

We make it clear that, in case the awarded sum exceeds the sum insured, Appellant shall have to pay the differential amount.

In view of our above findings, we dismiss these Appeals. No costs.

Let the original copy of this order be kept in the case record of A/949/2017 and photocopies thereof in the case records of A/950/2017, A/951/2017 and A/952/2017.