PER MRS. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

          For the reasons cited in the Applications seeking Condonation of Delay, delay of 14 days in filing FA No. 111/2019,  15 days in filing FA No. 112/2019, 47 days in filing FAs No. 253 & 254 of 2019,  36 days in filing FA No. 190/2019 and 75 days in filing Fa No. 344 of 2019 is condoned. 

2.       Aggrieved by the order dated 12.11.2018 in Consumer Complaints No.  30 and 31 of 2004 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,  Delhi (in short “the State Commission”),  M/s Alok Gas Agency (hereinafter referred to as “the Dealer”) filed First Appeals bearing No. 111 and 112 of 2019,  Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Insurance Company”) filed First Appeals bearing No. 190 and 344 of 2019 and M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “IOCL”) filed First Appeals bearing No. 253 and 254 of 2019 under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”). As all these Appeals arise out of same common Impugned Order, they are being decided by this common Order.

3.       By the Impugned Order, the State Commission has allowed the Complaint in part giving the following reliefs:-

In this way the Complainants claiming compensation on account of the death of Smt. Neena Jhamb are entitled to following amounts:

27. Compensation in respect of injured Smt. Kanta Jhamb (in complaint case no. 31/2004) is allowed as under:

28. Summing up the position explained above Complainants in Complaint no. 30/2004 are entitled to an amount of ₹10,46,734/- alongwith interest @8% per annum from the date of institution of the Complaint till its realization.

Complainants in complaint no. 31/2004 are entitled to an amount of ₹1,75,000/- alongwith interest @8% per annum from the date of institution of the Complaint till its realization.  

The abovesaid amounts shall be paid by OP1 and OP2 jointly and severally to the Complainants within a period of 30 days from today failing which the amounts shall carry interest @12% p.a. 

29.  Since insurance policy is admitted, I feel that the Insurance Company i.e. OP3 is liable to indemnify OP2 i.e. M/s. Alok Gas Agency. 

4.       Complaint No. 30 of 2004 has been preferred by the Legal Heirs i.e. Husband, Sons and father-in-law of the deceased Smt. Neena Jhamb whereas Complaint No. 31 of 2004 has been preferred by Mrs. Kanta Jhamb, mother-in-law of the deceased who was also injured in the fire accident.

5.       The facts in brief are that deceased Mrs. Neena Jhamb, Complainant’s wife, used to assist her mother-in-law Mrs. Kanta Jhamb in cooking and looking after the family of the Complainant and their relatives as all of them lived in a joint family.  It is stated that the family got a connection of IOCL through the Dealer who was providing gas cylinders to the Complainant’s family from time to time in the name of “Indane” gas.  It is averred that it was the duty of the Respondents i.e. IOCL and the Dealer to make sure that gas cylinder had been delivered to the consumers in a proper condition with a tight cap and no leakage so that no injuries are caused to the persons accepting the cylinders. 

6.       While so, on 03.04.2003, Mrs. Kanta Jhamb, while cooking observed that the gas was exhausted and the cylinder had become empty and another filled-up cylinder was brought to the kitchen for connecting with the burner.  When Mrs. Kanta Jhamb removed the cap of the spare cylinder, suddenly gas leaked and started coming out like a shower of liquid gas and she along with Mrs. Neena Jhamb realized that there was a leakage and made an attempt to rush out of the kitchen.  A blast in the form of a ball of fire occurred, the glasses of window panes were shattered and the whole kitchen was set on fire resulting in both the ladies being engulfed in the flames of fire, sustaining severe burn injuries.  Mrs. Kanta Jhamb suffered 65% burns and Mrs. Neena Jhamb suffered 90% burns.  They were both rushed to the Hospital where the condition of Mrs. Kanta Jhamb improved on 21.04.2003 after staying in the Hospital for 18 long days, but unfortunately Mrs. Neena Jhamb succumbed to the her burn injuries on 27.04.2003. 

7.       It is averred that huge expenditure was incurred on the treatment of both the ladies amounting to approximately ₹2,96,000/-.  Besides ₹30,000/- were spend on blood units.  The officials of Delhi Fire Service who had rushed to the spot investigated and gave a finding that there was a leakage in the valve of the gas cylinder due to which the accident had taken place.  It is averred that it was only on account of the leakage of the defective cylinder that both the ladies had suffered severe burn injuries and Mrs. Neena Jhamb had expired, as a result of which the first Complainant lost his wife, the second and third Complainants lost their mother and are deprived of the love and affection at such a tender age.  Hence the Complaints seeking the following reliefs:-

In Complaint No. 30/2004:-

In Complaint No. 31/2004:-

 8.      The Dealer filed their Written Version resisting the Complaint, stating that no FIR was lodged with the Police, that without an FIR and forensic examination of the site of incident, it cannot be said that the cause of accident was only due to defective cylinder. It is stated that the insured was first taken to a Nursing Home and thereafter to the Hospital which strengthens the suspicion on the Complainant’s bona fide.    It is averred that it is a mandatory requirement on behalf of the consumer to check whether there is a leakage in the cylinder at the time of taking delivery; it is an established practice to check the cylinder at the time of delivery by opening the seal and putting little water in it to check the leakage and also by smelling it; the Complainant did not exercise in due diligence; that no gas agency can supply a cylinder without the seal; be that as it may, still if there had been a leakage in the cylinder an obnoxious smell of butane gas would have emitted from it and the Complainant would have known about it; that the remarks of Delhi Fire Service cannot be presumed to a conclusive finding that the accident was on account of gas cylinder and that the Complainants were receiving gas cylinders even from other gas agencies and, therefore, it cannot be said that cylinder involved in the incident  was the one which caused the fire accident and, therefore, there is no deficiency on their behalf.

9.       IOCL resisted the Complaint on the ground that the Complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as the supply of gas in the re-filled cylinder is between the Dealer and the Complainant; as there was no service rendered by IOCL qua the Complainant; the fire was caused by the negligent act of the Complainants by letting the gas from the LPG cylinder by natural process of dissipation and an electric spark or some source of fire could have caused LPG to catch fire.  That under the agreement between the IOCL and the Dealer the transaction is a Principal-to-Principal basis and only the Dealer is responsible for the safety and security of the cylinders in its possession and IOCL is not responsible for the same; that as per the terms and conditions between the IOCL and the Distributor, it is the Distributor/Dealer who is responsible for checking the safety standards laid down and it is their duty to check before it is taken out for delivery; that IOCL is a Public Sector Enterprise and is engaged in the production, storage and supply of LPG for domestic consumers through a network of Dealers and does not supply LPG directly to domestic consumers and that various quality controls measures applied to both the Manufacturer and Supplier of the LPG cylinders.

10.     It is stated by IOCL that all the cylinders are checked to conform to the various safety norms, which are required statutorily before they are taken in use and also while, they are refilled and leave the bottling plants for supply and distribution.  It is stated that when the empty cylinders are sent for refilling, the cylinders are first visually inspected and cylinders that are more than 5 to 7 years and those that are dented and unfit for use are segregated and removed.  Thereafter the empty cylinders are washed before they are taken for refilling.  The other things like mentioning of their weight are done at this stage.  The cylinders are refilled and after filling, the weight is checked through electronic balance.  At this stage, the Valve and the ‘O’ Ring are checked through Compact Valve testing. Any cylinder, which does not meet the norm, is segregated and sent for replacement of valve/O ring or weight correction as the case may be.  It is only the cylinders with correct weight and leakage free are passed for dispatch on which the safety caps are put and sealed online.  To prevent any machine/human failure regular statistical quality checks (SQC)  are carried out by Plant Manager as well.  Strict instructions are given to the labour to load only good quality cylinders.  The aforesaid steps are taken by the Company to check the safety of the cylinders. Similarly the Dealers/Distributors also check the 10% cylinders on random basis in every truckload received for correct weight/any physical damage to the cylinder. However, 100% of the cylinders are checked before delivery.  Any cylinder found defective/underweight are returned by the Distributor to the Bottling Plant as per the prescribed procedure.  The delivery man of the Distributor is required to check the cylinder for leakage at the customers place by breaking open the seal and removing the plastic cap and connecting the cylinder to the hot plate.  The cylinder, if not required for immediate use in cases where the connection is a double bottle connection, is removed from the hot plate and kept in a vertical position after putting the plastic cap in its place.

11.     It is stated that in respect of supply, distribution and consumption of LPG each person in the chain has definite role to play.  The Dealer as well as the Consumer has to adhere to certain obligations cast upon them as wrong/incorrect handling of LPG Cylinders can cause damage to life and property.  It is submitted that if the cylinder had been inspected and connected to the appliance at the time of delivery by the Dealer and kept connected with the appliance till such time the LPG in the cylinder exhausted by the consumer it could not have leaked and caught fire.  It is submitted that the mandatory obligations cast upon the dealer and the subscriber appears to have not been complied with.  The obligation of IOCL culminates with the supply of cylinders to the Distributors.  It is stated that IOCL supplies cylinders on Principal-to-Principal basis and the responsibility is that of the Dealer after the cylinders are received by them.  However, with a view to ensure safety norms IOCL has issued an LPG Gas Manual, which clearly provides the various dos and don’ts.  The instructions issued by IOCL clearly show that the same has been designed to provide LPG distributors with instructions on technical matters. 

12.     One of the mandatory requirements under the manual is that both the customer as well as the delivery man of the Dealer are required to ensure presence of the ‘O’ ring (sealing rubber washer) and to check all the joints for leakage.  Further both the customer as well as the Dealer’s deliveryman are required to check the leakage of gas.  The points to be checked are:

(a)          the welded seams or in the cylinder valve

(b)          the cylinder/valve connection (bung joint)

(c)          the cylinder valve (only at customer’s premises).

          It is further stated that as soon as any leakage is noticed, immediate remedial action has to be taken on the spot. The staff of the Dealer are trained to stop the leakage and to take other prompt remedial actions like replacement of cylinders etc.  Even the customers are provided with instruction cards wherein various dos and don’ts are specified.  Besides they are also orally advised about the remedial steps to be taken in the evnet of any emergency arising.

13.     It is further stated that there is no evidence or any Report issued by Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory, that has been filed along with the Complaint, to show what went wrong.  In the absence of any Report it could be that the pin assembly had broken due to excessive external pressure and not due to wear and tear.   It is further submitted that the Plastic Cap on the cylinder is placed correctly on the cylinder mouth is capable of stopping leakage of gas abruptly and completely.  It is not impossible to put the plastic cap on the cylinder even when the gas is leaking at cylinder pressure.  Further the gas leaking out of the cylinder at full pressure will not result in a blast as stated in the Complaint and, therefore, without any report of manufacturing defect, IOCL cannot be made liable. 

14.     Though the Insurance Company in their Written Version and in their  amended Written Version stated that the Policy covers any one accident for ₹10,00,000/- and ₹40,00,000/-(AOY). In their written arguments, the Insurance Company have reversed their stand on the ground that the Dealer had taken LPG Indemnity Policy for the period 30.03.2003 to 29.03.2004 only in respect of the building, EMT-4 filter, stock of empty and stock of filled-up cylinders.  It is averred that the subject Policy was not taken to cover any Personal Accident/Death to any customer and in the absence of said Policy cover, the liability of the Insurance Company, arrayed as Opposite Party No. 3 in the Main Complaint, does not arise.

15.     The State Commission while allowing the Complaint with the afore-noted reliefs has observed as follows:-

“19.    It is the admitted case of the parties that the incident took place on 03.04.2003 while Smt. Kanta Jhamb and Smt. Neena Jhamb were attempting to replace the empty cylinder with the filled up one.  The moment the plastic cover covering the valve was removed, gas started coming out rapidly.  After sometime it caught fire and the accumulated gas had acquired the shape of a fire ball.  It is not the case of the complainants that the body of the gas cylinder was defective.  It was only at the point of valve and the lid that the complainants alleged ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of OP1 and OP2.  Since the leakage took place at the time of removal of the plastic cap only, there was no question of the obnoxious smell of BUTANE having been perceived by any family member during the period when the cylinder was lying unused.  In other words there was no complaint of leakage of gas prior to the date of incident. Manufacturing defect of the body of the cylinder as such is not alleged. 

20. Complainants immediately reported the matter to the Department of Fire who reached the site and submitted their report.  There was no attempt on the part of the complainants to conceal the incident.  Plea thus raised by OP1 that the complainants should have obtained a report from the lab is of no avail as the defect was in the fixing of the valve and the lid thereon.  In normal course after lifting of the plastic cover, the valve closes the aperture, avoiding any type of leakage.  It is only when some pressure is put by the regulator on the valve that a way for the gas to come out, is made.  

21. Complainants have been able to discharge their initial burden that the valve and the lid upon it were not properly placed.  Now the burden is shifted on the OPs to prove that opening of the lid in a particular manner not prescribed could cause the accident.  A vague allegation that it was a case of mishandling is of no avail to the OPs.

22. Defence raised by OP2 that the complainants wanted to burn the deceased Smt. Neena Jhamb is totally devoid of merits as it is not supported by any material.  Delhi Fire Service officials gave a finding that the incident took place due to leakage of the gas cylinder valve.  Mother-in-law getting 65% burns and daughter-in-law getting 90% burns is sheer accident and OP2 has viewed the accident with coloured glasses.

16.        Learned Counsel appearing for the Dealer vehemently contended that if there is any manufacturing defect in the cylinder the Dealer cannot be made liable; that there is contributory negligence by the Complainant; that IOCL cannot wriggle out saying that the arrangement is Principal-to-Principal basis specifically when there is finding that there is a manufacturing defect in the cylinder; that the cylinder was checked and then given for delivery and it is the duty of the Complainant to check the cylinder at the time of delivery by opening the sale of the cylinder to put little water in it to check leakage and further smell it.  Learned Counsel further argued that it is the duty of IOCL to have completely checked the cylinder at the time of putting seal on it or the Complainant ought to have checked the leakage status at the time of delivery and that the Dealer has no role to play as the delivery is done only after checking the entire cylinder.

17.     Learned Counsel appearing for IOCL vehemently argued that the arrangement is on a Principal-to-Principal basis and no liability can be fastened upon them.  He relied on the Judgement of this Commission in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/s PSNR Combines & Ors. 2010 SCC OnLine NCDRC 29: [2010] NCDRC 29  in which this Commission allowed the Revision Petition after absolving  Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. on the ground that as per the Clauses in the Agreement between the Manufacturer and the Dealer, the Manufacturer is not liable as he has acted as a Principal. 

18.     Learned Counsel appearing for the Dealer also relied on the Judgement dated 28.09.2012 of this Commission in FA/132/2017  Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Vijaynagar Gas Agencies  in which this Commission has observed that the stand of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. that there is a Dealer Agreement and, therefore, only the Dealer is responsible for all the consequences, was held to be untenable.  It was observed that it is the Manufacturer who manufacturers and it is their responsibility for taking all precautions before filling the cylinders prior to delivering the same to the Dealer.  The role of the Dealer is only the  distribution of the cylinders as per the requirement of the consumers. 

19.     The brief point which falls for consideration is whether there is any deficiency on behalf of IOCL and/or the Dealer in delivering a defective cylinder and also if the accident was caused on account of the leakage/defective cylinder.

20.     The facts not in dispute are that the fire accident took place on 03.04.2003; that Smt. Kanta Jhamb and Smt. Neena Jhamb sustained 75% and 90% burns respectively; that after being hospitalized for a period of 18 days Smt. Kanta Jhamb survived but Smt. Neena Jhamb succumbed to the injuries.  It is the Complainant’s case that when Smt. Kanta Jhamb and Smt. Neena Jhamb were cooking together, as it was a joint family, they realized that the gas had exhausted and they brought a fresh cylinder which was delivered to them two weeks ago, removed the cap of the spare cylinder and suddenly there was gas leakage and it was deposed by the surviving lady Mrs. Kanta Jhamb that on immediately realizing that there was leakage in the cylinder they made a frantic attempt to get out of the kitchen but there was a blast shattering all the window panes and the flames of fire engulfed them.  Interrogatories were served on the surviving Smt. Kanta Jhamb and she deposed that she was a graduate and the cylinder weight and the seal were checked by them while taking the delivery and that delivery-man usually does not check the leakage as he is in a hurry.  She further deposed that as soon as the subject cylinder was brought to the kitchen and its seal was open, the gas immediately started gushing out leaving them with no option but to suspect gas leakage and rushed out of the kitchen.  It was further deposed both in the Affidavit and in the Interrogatories that the pressure of gas was at such a rapid rate that they could not do anything else. 

21.     We find force in the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Complainants that the windows and doors were already open and that it was only on account of the gas which had emanated from the cylinder as soon as the seal was opened that the blast had occurred.  The fire official’s report further substantiates that the fire was only on account of leakage in the gas cylinder.  The contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the Dealer that the fire could also be because of short-circuit and that there is no other evidence to prove that the fire was on account of leakage in the subject cylinder, is untenable in the light of the fact that there is no other evidence filed either by IOCL or the Dealer to prove to the contrary.  The contention of both IOCL and the Dealer regarding contributory negligence by the Complainants is also untenable as all that the two ladies had done was to open the seal of the fresh cylinder.  The stand taken by the Dealer that the customer is required to check the leakage of gas at the time of delivery is not possible practically as the consumer is not required  to open the seal of the gas cylinder at the time of delivery.  The customer can only check for any other defects/deficiencies. 

22.     The contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for IOCL that it is the duty of the customer as well as the delivery-man to check for leakage and that there is no privity of contract between IOCL and the Complainant and that there is absolutely no deficiency of service on their behalf cannot be accepted in its totality.  Though the Learned Counsel has extensively explained the quality control measures taken, it cannot be concluded that the subject cylinder was defect-free.  We find force in the contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the Dealer that they only distribute the gas cylinders and do not interfere with any quality control measures and that IOCL cannot wash its hands off being the manufacturer of the LPG cylinders distributed by the Dealer.  It is evident that the seal is put by the manufacturer and the gas cylinder is returned back to the manufacturer for re-filling purposes and, therefore, the manufacturer cannot escape their liability from any manufacturing defect or problem in the seal of the cylinder.  It is only because of the leakage after the seal having been opened that the incident had occurred and, therefore, the stand of IOCL that the relationship between the Manufacturer and the Distributor is that of Principal-to-Principal  basis and that cannot be made liable for any compensation to be paid to the Complainant, is untenable.  This Commission in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Vijaynagar Gas Agencies (supra) has held that it is the Manufacturer’s duty as well as responsibility to take all possible precautions while filling the cylinder before delivering them to the Dealer. 

23.     On a pointed query from the Bench as to whether the Dealer communicated the incident to IOCL and had taken any steps for conducting an enquiry into the matter, was answered in the negative.  It was stated that there was no such procedure.  Learned Counsel appearing for the Dealer argued that as a Dealer he is not in the knowledge as to whether the valve/seal was faulty or not.  It is pertinent to note that even after the death of Late Smt. Nina Jhamb and 75% burns of Smt. Kanta Jhamb admittedly no enquiry was conducted by IOCL seeking reasons for the leakage of LPG cylinder, which, the Fire Department has also reported was the cause.  Section 13(1)(C) of the Consumer Protection Act specifies as hereunder:-

          “13(1)(c) where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum”.

24.     It is relevant and significant to mention that no steps were taken by IOCL under Section 13(1)(C).  The perusal of the material on record shows that no such Application was filed or any attempt was made by IOCL to ascertain the reasons for the leakage and further if there was any defect in the cylinder.  At the cost of repetition, no enquiry was conducted or any Report was filed.  This stand taken by IOCL is deprecated.  The finding of this Commission in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Vijaynagar Gas Agencies (supra) has attained finality and the facts and circumstances of the current case evidences that the IOCL is liable to compensate for the defective cylinder which caused the fire accident.

25.     We find it a fit case to place reliance on the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2014 – For LPG Distributorship  issued by IOCL, Bharat Petroleum and Hindustan Petroleum.  The relevant portion is reproduced as hereunder:-

1.4 QUALITY / QUANTITY CONTROL MEASURES

a) Presently, for a ‘Household’ [‘Household’ as defined in the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000 as amended on 10 September’ 2009 or as notified from time to time] domestic consumers would be provided at subsidized rate upto 11 cylinders of 14.2 Kg in 2013-14 and upto 12 cylinders of 14.2 Kg in 2014-15 or the number of cylinders as notified from time to time. Any cylinders beyond 11 in 2013-14 & 12 in 2014-15 or the number as notified from time to time will be given at non-subsidized domestic rate. Non-Domestic Exempted Category (NDEC) customers are also treated as domestic LPG customers and allowed the supply of LPG at subsidized rates till the cap as is applicable to domestic LPG customers.

b) 100% cylinders should be visually inspected for dents and cuts on the body of cylinders and such damaged cylinders should be segregated and returned to Bottling Plant. Similarly, the cylinders which are due for Statutory Testing should also be segregated and returned to the Bottling Plant.

c) All the cylinders taken out for delivery should be checked for correctness of net weight on the platform type weighing scale prescribed in the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 as amended from time to time. Cylinders that have net weight beyond permissible limit prescribed in the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 as amended from time to time should be segregated and returned to concerned Bottling Plant.

d) Cylinder with correct net weight only should be taken out for delivery to the customers.

e) While delivering the filled LPG cylinder to the customer, distributor staff should verify the address of the customer. In each and every case, the delivery man of the distributor should carry weighing equipment and deliver the cylinder after demonstrating weight to the customer or his representative.

f) Distributor to ensure that in each and every case, the delivery man carries weighing equipment and the cylinder is delivered to the customer after demonstrating weight in his/her presence.

g) The delivery man should also show the seal on the cylinder and open the seal of the cylinder with permission of customer to check the valve leakage and ‘O’ ring leakage.

h) The delivery man should take permission of customer to demonstrate the soundness of cylinder by connecting it with the Gas stove.

i) The delivery man should ensure to make proper entries of all the relevant information in the Domestic Gas Consumer Card (DGCC) regarding the refill supplies made to the respective customers.

j) Cash Memos should carry the message “Get cylinder checked for weight and leakage at the time of delivery” and till such time the cash memos do not carry the above message, distributor to ensure that the above message is prominently stamped on the customer’s copy of cash memos.

k) Cylinder with any defect should be brought back to the godown. Only sound cylinders should be delivered to the customers.

l) Distributor to maintain record of defective cylinders returned from customer. Distributors should return these cylinders to concerned LPG Bottling Plants after certification by the respective OMC Officer.

m) Delivery boy should convey and deliver any message / instruction to the customer relating to LPG marketing as intimated from time to time.

1.5 OBSERVANCE OF STATUTORY AND OTHER REGULATIONS

i) All statutory rules and regulations in connection with storage and sale of petroleum products must be followed and implemented.

ii) To observe rules and regulations of the Department of Explosives.

iii) Distributor will not buy, sell or exchange domestic Pressure Regulators / LPG Cylinders / petroleum products with any other Distributor or anybody other than the principal Oil Company unless authorized by the concerned Oil Company in writing.

iv) Distributor to maintain files wherein all Inspection Reports, correspondence received from Oil Company from time to time, copies of invoices etc., are available at the distributorship for ready reference.

26.     In the light of the afore-stated Marketing Discipline Guidelines 2014 – For LPG Distributorship, we hold that the Dealer has supplied the defective gas cylinder and cannot shirk his responsibility by contending that the  Complainant should be more vigilant and ensure that the cylinder has the Company seal and safety cap is fixed perfectly.  In fact, the guidelines specify that the cylinder should be checked by the Dealer thoroughly prior to delivery.  Hence, the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Dealer that only IOCL is liable, cannot be sustained.  

27.     For all the afore-noted reasons we hold both the IOCL and the Dealer liable.  As regarding the submission that it is a Principal-to-Principal basis and, therefore, IOCL should not be made liable for the acts of the Dealer, we hold that as the material on record evidences that the blast was caused by a manufacturing defect in the cylinder, IOCL is principally liable.  Needless to add, there is no documentary evidence brought on record that there was any remote contributory negligence on behalf of the consumer.  Being the Manufacturer the onus shifts to IOCL to conduct an enquiry and report on the defect, if any or cause of the blast, which has not been done and, therefore, the submission of IOCL that there was no report of manufacturing defect, cannot be accepted.  

28.     Now we address ourselves to the contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the Oriental Insurance Company that the Policy  issued does not cover the customer’s accident and, therefore, they cannot be held liable.  As against this Learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant contended that  in their Written Version filed before the State Commission that the Insurance Company has stated that they are entitled to cover in one accident upto a maximum of ₹40,00,000/-.  A brief perusal of the amended reply filed before the State Commission shows that the Insurance Company has averred that they cover any one accident and public liability to the limit of ₹10,00,000/- and ₹40,00,000/- (AOY) but again in their Written Arguments the stand taken by the Insurance Company is contrary to what was averred in the Written Version.            

29.     A brief perusal of the Insurance Policy filed shows that the Policy is taken for a sum assured of ₹28,00,000/-  covering the following:-

          Section VI of Public Liability and Employers Liability and Section VII of Personal Accident reads as follows:-

“Section VI:- PUBLIC LIABILITY & EMPLOYERS LIABILITY

(a)   Public Liability:

       The Company will indemnify the insured in respect of all sums which the insured is legally liable to pay as compensation and litigation expenses incurred by the insured or by the Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter called as Indian Oil) with the Company’s written consent in respect of accidental death or bodily injury to any person other than a person under the insured’ s Service and or accidental damage to property caused by or arising from installation of gas filled liquefied petroleum gas cylinder in the premises of the insured’s customers or whilst such cylinders from the insured’s premises are in course of being carried for installation in the premises of the insured’s customers or whilst such empty cylinders are in the course of being carried in the premises of the insured customers to the insured’s premises, not exceeding in all for the compensation and litigation expenses the limit of ₹10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lakhs only) for anyone accident or a series of accidents arising from the any one event and ₹10,00,000/- for all accidents during one period of insurance.

(b)   Employer’s Liability:

       The Company will indemnify the insured in respect of all sums which the insured is legally liable to pay as compensation to his workmen under the Fatal Accident Act 1855, Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 or any amendment thereto or Common Law in respect of death or bodily injury to such workmen arising out of and in the course of employment.” (Emphasis supplied).

30.     Keeping in view that the afore-noted Policy which specifically indemnifies the insured against such perils, we are of the view that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount to the extent of maximum limit of ₹10,00,000/-.  

31.     In view of the afore-stated discussion, First Appeals 111 and 112 of 2019  by the Dealer and First Appeals 253 and 254 of 2019 by IOCL are dismissed and both are held jointly and severally liable to compensate the Complainants.  We also dismiss the First Appeals preferred by IOCL with costs of ₹25,000/- for not having cared enough to even conduct an enquiry regarding the cause of the accident that has occurred. First Appeals bearing No. 190 and 344 of 2019 by the Insurance Company are also dismissed.  Statutory Deposits made in all the First Appeals shall stand transferred to the Complainant.