SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)
The Complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s-12 of C.P.A.-1986, (here-in- after called as the “Act”) alleging a “deficiency-in-service” against the Opp. Parties.
2. The factual matrix of this case is that the complainant is a consumer under OP No.1 & 2 being the domestic Indane cooking gas bearing Consumer No.8972174, Card No.G-3223. The complainant was insured against any damage of such domestic connection by the OP No.1, who had insured him under the OP No.3 & 4. It is the specific case of the complainant that on 13.6.2014 near about 4.15 PM, while he ignited the gas, it got fire due to leakage of the gas from the cylinder, as a result, he caught fire and his entire thatched house was also burnt and not a single household article rescued causing a great loss more than one Lakh.
Immediately, the matter was reported to the In-charge of the nearest Fire Station, who controlled the fire and their report clearly shows about the intensity of the fire and approximate and probable damage caused to the complainant. Moreover, the Fire Accident Certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Simulia vide Misc. Case No.6/2014 corroborated the above fire accident and loss sustained by the complainant. The complainant was serious being burnt more than 60% for which he was shifted to Simulia CHC and thereafter he was shifted to Salandi Hospital, Bhadrak on the next day from which he was discharged on 25.6.2014. In the process of his treatment, the complainant spent Rs.1,50,000.00 and incurred loss Rs.1,00,000.00 for his work.
On getting information about the aforesaid accident, OP No.5 paid his visit to the premises of the complainant and could confirm with regard to the fire accident caused due to leakage of gas and damage and collected all required documents available with him. He had also taken the blank claim Form duly signed by the complainant and assured the complainant would get Rs.3,00,000.00 as compensation. But after several attempts made by the complainant, no one has listen to him nor any effective steps are taken by the Ops for resolving the matter. Due to the negligent act of the Ops, the complainant has not only sustained a substantial loss but also suffered mental agony.
The cause of action arose for filing the case on 13.6.2014 when the accident occurred and on 15.3.2016 when the officer at Bhubaneswar IOC denied and refused finally to do anything. Hence, this case.
To substantiate his case, the complainant has relied on the following documents, which are placed in the record, as mentioned hereunder-
- Photocopy of Domestic Gas customer card.
- Photocopy of information lodged before Fire Station, Ada.
- Photocopy of articles damaged in the fire accident.
- Photocopy of information lodged by one Arun Mohanty before Fire Station, Ada.
- Photocopy of Fire Accident Certificate issued by Tahasildar, Simulia.
- Photocopy of ticket for Out Door Patient.
- Photocopy of Medical papers relating to Salandi Hospital, Bhadrak.
- Photocopy of spot visit report made by OP No.5 issued to the complainant.
- Photocopy of letters issued to the complainant by the IOCL.
- Photocopy of letter issued to the complainant by OP No.5.
- Photocopy of letter issued to the complainant by OP No.1.
- Photocopy of letter issued by the complainant to the IOCL.
3. In the present case, OP No.1 to 4 have appeared whereas OP No.5 did not appear irrespective of receipt of the notice, hence, OP No.5 is set ex parte. OP No.1, OP No.2 and OP No.3 & 4 have filed their respective written versions.
4. Challenging the averments and the cause of action made in the complaint petition, OP No.1 has specifically stated that the complainant has taken domestic cooking gas connection, but it was beyond their knowledge for what reason the complainant was burnt seriously and later on he came to know while the complainant was shifted to hospital on 13.6.2014. On getting information about the fire accident, the surveyor (OP No.5) made a spot inspection as well as met the complainant. That apart, when the regulator of the cylinder has been duly insured with the insurance company by the IOCL, the insurance company is liable for the compensation to the complainant. Thus, the OP No.1 has no role to play. Moreover, all the informations, as sought for by the insurance company, has been duly complied with by the OP No.1. Therefore, no deficiency in service attributed against the OP No.1.
5. OP No.2 has specifically stated in his written version that the complainant has to prove that he had fire insurance policy and fire took place through gas cylinder. The report of the surveyor is an essential document to assess the loss claimed by the complainant subject to the terms and conditions and it is the look out of OP No.3 & 4 to supervise the claim of the complainant. The OP No.2 is no way liable to pay the compensation as there is no condition to claim. Further, OP No.2 has been impleaded as party in this case without any just reason.
6. In their written version, OP No.3 & 4 has stated, inter alia, that the OP No.1 has not taken any insurance policy from them and the complainant is not a beneficiary or consumer under them as there was no contract of insurance at any point of time. It is further stated that on 13.6.2014 morning hour the complainant had taken a refill and at the relevant point of time while he tried to ignite the gas stove, he could not. The gas was leaking and spread in the kitchen. Again when he ignite the stove, there was a sudden blast. Thereafter, fire brigade came to the spot on receiving information over telephone from one Srinibas Mohanty. So far as the expenditure incurred by the complainant is concerned, it is stated by these Ops that from the invoice No.253 dated 25.6.2014 issued by Salandi Hospital, Bhadrak in favour of complainant reveals that he had incurred Rs.22,869.00 towards his medical treatment of burning injury due to the alleged accident. The complainant has not contacted with the present Ops nor submitted any claim form in time for settlement of the matter, as alleged. Further, the complainant is not entitled to get the damage towards property, as claimed, because he has not submitted the accounts of the property damaged due to the alleged fire accident nor submitted any cogent proof to show that the property so damaged belongs to him. But considering the nature of damage, the complainant has been reimbursed Rs.5,600.00 towards property damage as per terms and conditions of the policy and he has already received Rs.17,600.00 from the Tahasildar, Simulia for assistance towards house damage. That apart, the complainant has also received the settled amount of Rs.18,469.00 from the insurance company. Therefore, deficiency in service does not constitute against the present Ops.
To substantiate their case, the OP No.3 & 4 have relied on the following documents, which are placed in the record, as mentioned hereunder-
- Photocopy of public liability policy for the period 2.5.14 to 1.5.15.
- Photocopy of LPG Accident claim intimation form.
- Photocopy of claim form.
- Photocopy of survey report.
- Photocopy of photographs.
- Photocopy of Tahasildar report.
- Photocopy of domestic gas consumer card.
- Photocopy of LPG accident report.
- Photocopy of outdoor ticket.
- Photocopy of discharge ticket.
- Photocopy of invoice No.253 dated 25.6.14.
- Photocopy of money receipt issued by Salandi Hospital.
- Photocopy of retail invoice No.1878, 1879, 1880 dated 25.6.14.
- Photocopy of statement of Smt. Pravasini Mohanty.
- Photocopy of FIR lodged by Pravasini Mohanty.
- Photocopy of fire brigade report of Ada Fire Station.
- Photocopy of mail dated 19.1.15.
- Photocopy of reminder dated 3.7.15.
- Photocopy of mail dated 14.7.16.
- Photocopy of settlement intimation voucher.
- Photocopy of remittance advice.
7. In view of the above averments of parties, the points for determination in this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether the Complainant is a Consumer or not?
(ii) Whether the complainant has cause of action to file this case?
(iii) Whether this consumer case is maintainable?
(iv) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
(v) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief, as sought for?
(vi) To what other relief(s), the Complainant is entitled to?
F I N D I N G S
8. First of all it is to be determined as to whether the complainant is a consumer or not. From the averments made in the pleadings of both the parties and document produced on behalf of the complainant vide Annexure- 1, it is clear that he is a consumer under OP No.1 & 2 being the domestic Indane cooking gas bearing Consumer No.8972174, Card No.G-3223. The complainant was insured against any damage of such domestic connection by the OP No.1, who had insured him under the OP No.3 & 4. The Ops have not denied that the complainant is not a consumer under them. Therefore, the complainant is covered under the definition of a Consumer as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
9. Before delve into the merits of the case, it is required to be decided how far the complainant is able to prove his case with regard to the cause of action and maintainability of the complaint. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that on 13.6.2014 about 4.15 PM while the complainant ignited the gas with a view to prepare tea, it got fire due to leakage of the gas from the cylinder and caught fire and his entire thatched house was also burnt even not a single household articles rescued. So, immediately he reported the matter to the In-charge of the nearest Fire Station, who came and controlled the fire. Their report clearly shows about the intensity of fire and approximate and probable damage caused to the complainant. Moreover, the Fire Accident Certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Simulia vide Misc. Case No.6/2014 corroborated the above fire accident and loss sustained by the complainant. It is further urged that the complainant was serious being burnt more than 60% for which he was shifted to Simulia CHC and thereafter he was shifted to Salandi Hospital, Bhadrak on the next day from which he was discharged on 25.6.2014. In the process of his treatment, the complainant spent Rs.1,50,000.00 and incurred loss of Rs.1,00,000.00 for his work.
Learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that on getting information about the aforesaid accident, OP No.5 visited the premises of the complainant and confirmed that the fire accident was caused due to leakage of gas so also damage and collected all required documents. He had also taken the blank claim Form duly signed by the complainant and assured the complainant would get Rs.3,00,000.00 as compensation. But after several attempts made by the complainant, no one has listen to him nor any effective steps are taken by the Ops for resolving the matter.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting OP No.1 vehemently urged that the complainant has taken domestic cooking gas connection, but it was beyond their knowledge with regard to the alleged incident, but later on while the complainant was shifted to hospital on 13.6.2014, they came to know about the incident. On getting information about the fire accident, their surveyor (OP No.5) made a spot inspection as well as met the complainant. That apart, when the regulator of the cylinder has been duly insured with the insurance company by the IOCL, the insurance company is liable for the compensation to the complainant. Therefore, this OP has no role to play. Moreover, all the informations, as sought for by the insurance company, has been duly complied with by the OP No.1. Therefore, no deficiency in service attributed against the OP No.1.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2 submitted that it is the duty of the complainant to inform about the incident immediately to the nearest Indane distributor, but in the present case, the complainant has not intimated the fact of alleged incident to the OP No.1 and the OP No.1 has lodged the report of its own. Basing upon the information of OP No.1, surveyor has been deputed to the spot for assessment of the loss and upon spot investigation, surveyor has submitted report to the OP No.3 & 4. Therefore, it is the look out of OP No.3 & 4 to supervise the claim of the complainant. The OP No.2 is no way liable to pay the compensation as there is no condition to claim.
12. Learned counsel for the OP No.3 & 4 has submitted that on 13.6.2014 morning hour the complainant had taken a refill Indane cylinder from OP No.1 and at the relevant point of time while he tried to ignite the gas stove, he could not. The gas was leaking and spread in the kitchen. Again when he ignite the stove, there was a sudden blast. Thereafter, fire brigade came to the spot on receiving information over telephone from one Srinibas Mohanty. So far as the expenditure incurred by the complainant is concerned, it is submitted that the invoice No.253 dated 25.6.2014 issued by Salandi Hospital, Bhadrak in favour of complainant itself reveals that he had incurred Rs.22,869.00 towards his medical treatment of burning injury due to the alleged accident. The complainant has not contacted with the present Ops nor submitted any claim form in time for settlement of the matter, as alleged. Further, the complainant is not entitled to get the damage towards property, as claimed, because he has not submitted the accounts of the property damaged due to the alleged fire accident nor submitted any cogent proof to show that the property so damaged belongs to him. But considering the nature of damage, the complainant has been reimbursed Rs.5,600.00 towards property damage as per terms and conditions of the policy and he has already received Rs.17,600.00 from the Tahasildar, Simulia for assistance towards house damage. That apart, the complainant has also received the settled amount of Rs.18,469.00 from the insurance company. Therefore, deficiency in service does not constitute against the present Ops.
13. From the above rival submissions of both the parties, it is clear that the house of the complainant was engulfed in flames after a new refilled LPG cylinder was installed and the fire brigade’s report confirmed that the fire was caused by a leakage in cylinder. None of the Ops have denied that the house of the complainant has not engulfed on the alleged date and time. Thus, first of all it is to be looked out whether the complainant has intimated the fact of accident to the nearest Indane agency wherefrom the complainant has taken the cylinder. Nowhere in the complaint petition, the complainant has ever stated a single line that 13.6.2014 he has informed the OP No.1 soon after the incident was occurred. That apart, the complainant has also not informed the OP No.1 about the leakage of gas from the Indane Gas Cylinder. It is revealed that OP No.1, Gas Agency on his own getting information about the fire accident, informed the matter to the insurance company and their surveyor, OP No.5 made a spot inspection and met the complainant. Moreover, OP No.3 & 4 have stated that on 30.7.2014, on receiving information from the S.O., Balasore LSA, Indian Oil Corporation Limited about the fire accident and loss of property, they appointed OP No.5 for inspection of the premises of the complainant and to survey the damages, loss of the house and household articles and injury sustained by him caused due to alleged fire accident and assess the loss. On 19.1.2015, their office received survey report from OP No.5 and on verification, they found that the complainant has not submitted any claim form, accident report, documents in respect to his treatment and the expenditure incurred by him so also the damage or loss of property. Again on 25.1.2015, their office has received LPG accident report, photocopy of discharge ticket of Salandi Hospital in the name of the complainant, money receipt, outdoor ticket, final bill, retail invoice along with other documents. Finally, on 27.10.2016, their office received the claim form duly filled in and signed by the complainant.
14. On receipt of all the relevant documents from OP No.3 & 5, OP No.4 found that Surveyor (OP No.5) has assessed Rs.5,000/- for loss of bamboo and straw, Rs.6,750/- for loss or damage of 3 quintals of rice, Rs.6,750/- for loss of paddy, Rs.22,869/- for medical expenses, Rs.11,269/- for purchase of medicine: in total Rs.52,638/-. But as there was no cogent proof attached with the survey report, the Insurance Company did not accept the surveyor’s report and reasonably considered the damage/loss of rice and paddy to the tune of Rs.2,250/-, Rs.1350/- for loss of paddy, Rs.2,000/- for bamboo and that too deducting the aid of Rs.17,600/- received from the Tahasildar, Simulia towards house damage assistance, they settled the claim at Rs.18,469/-. It is not understood under what circumstances, the Insurance Company has considered the loss of property ignoring the Surveyor’s report. The complainant has submitted his claim form amounting to Rs.90,000/-. The report of the Fire Station authority reveals the value of loss or damage of the property at Rs.60,000/-. The Surveyor report reveals that the house of the complainant was completely burnt, thus, assessment of loss was assessed at Rs.52,638/- including the medical expenses of Rs.34,138/-. It is also revealed from the LPG Accident Report vide Annexure-H that during the accident, the roof of the house partially damaged and households \were burnt and the approximate value of the damaged assets will be Rs.50,000/-. That apart, the Insurance Company has only taken into consideration the house building materials, loss of paddy & rice and not taken into consideration the damage of house and loss of assets of the house nor the report of the Fire Station Authority. Further, deduction of aid received from the Government towards loss of house is not likely to be adjusted from the claim amount. Thus, ignoring the assessment made by the Surveyor and deduction of amount received form the Government towards aid and excluding the loss or damage caused towards the house, the calculation made as aforestated by the Insurance Company sounds no good, rather, the same was calculated whimsically according to their sweet will which otherwise attributed a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company.
15. Besides the above, the incident was taken place on 13.6.2014 and the complainant was treated on 13.6.2014 as outdoor patient and on 14.6.2014 he was admitted in Salandi Hospital, Bhadrak and remained there till 25.6.2014. Further, the complainant stated that he lost his work for about three months and sustained a loss of Rs.1,00,000/-. From the above discussions, it is held that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.50,000/- towards loss of assets, Rs.52,638/- towards loss or damage of rice and paddy and medical expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of his job: in total Rs.1,22,638/- along with compensation minus the amount of Rs.18,469/- already received by the complainant
16. In the present case, it is clearly made out that soon after receipt of the information about the fire accident in the house of the complainant due to gas leakage, OP No.1 has reported the matter to the OP No.2, 3 & 4. Thereafter, OP No.5 made a spot inspection in order to assess the loss or damage sustained by the complainant and submitted his spot inspection report before the OP No.3 & 4. OP No.2 is none other than the Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Therefore, the Commission is found no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1, 2 & 5. Hence, the OP No.3 & 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, as decided in the foregoing paragraphs.
Hence, it is ordered -
O R D E R
The complaint of the complainant be and the same is allowed on contest against O.Ps No.3 & 4. In view of the foregoing observations, no order against O.Ps No.1, 2 & 5 need to be passed. The O.Ps No.3 & 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1,04,169/- towards loss of paddy, rice, assets, house and medical expenses, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant within 45 days hence, failing which the complainant is entitled to get interest @ 9% on the principal amount from the date of actual cause of action and in case of failure by the O.Ps No.3 & 4 in payment of the aforestated awarded amount, the complainant is at liberty to realize the same from the Ops through the process of law.
Pronounced in the open Court of this Commission on this day i.e. the 20th day of February, 2024 given under my Signature & Seal of the commission.
