Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/13/38

INDIRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE AREA MANAGER IOC LTD - Opp.Party(s)

20 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN      : PRESIDENT

 SMT.PREETHA.G.NAIR : MEMBER

 SRI.VIJU.V.R                 : MEMBER

       CC.NO.38/13 (Filed on: 29/01/2013)

           ORDER DATED: 20/07/2022

COMPLAINANT

Mrs.Indira,

Bathel House,

Malancharuvu, Vavarambalam,

Pothencode.P.O

Thiruvananthapuram – 695584

(By Adv.V.Gopalakrishnan & Others)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. The Area Manager,

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,

Area Office, Panampilly Nagar, Cochin

2. The Proprietor,

Nirmal Indane,

•  

3. National Insurance Company Ltd,

Divisional Office, Vazhuthacadu,

•  

4. The Divisional Officer,

United India Insurance,

Divisional Office No.2, Malankara Building,

V.J.T.Hall Road, Palayam,

•  

(OP1 by Adv.M.Nizamudeen)

(OP2 by Adv.K.V.Jayakumar)

(OP3 by Adv.Prasanna Kumar Nair)

(OP4 by Adv.B.Ashok Kumar & Adv.N.G.Mahesh)

ORDER

SRI.VIJU.V.R        : MEMBER

1.       The complainant has presented this complaint before this Commission under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The facts of the case is that the complainant had availed a LPG connection for domestic purposes from the first opposite party. The consumer number of the complainant is 7296. The complainant was regularly availing gas cylinders from 03.01.2007 for domestic purpose. On 25.08.2012, while the complainant and her husband went to work at about 10.30 the gas cylinder in the complainant’s house exploded and due to this the entire house collapsed and the household articles were ablazed. The Fireforce vehicle could not reach the spot because of the narrow road. The fire force officials and the people gathered there together tried put out the fire using water from nearby well. The entire earnings of the complainant’s family were burnt out. The complainant’s household articles including furniture, television, fridge are totally destroyed causing material loss of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) which includes total collapse of the house with its all parts including records, documents, vessels, clothes and food products stocked for onam fair of Kudumbasree unit worth Rs.30,000/-. The incident had happened due to the latches from the side of the first and second opposite parties. It was the bounden duty of the first and second opposite party to ensure that proper security measures were taken to ensure safety during the entire period of operation for any parts supplied by the gas company like washers, regulators and cylinders before the delivery to the customer. The first opposite party has not taken a serious view on safety measures of their product. The incident will not happened if the first opposite party had taken the expected standard of protection. The petitioner has submitted her grievances before the local authorities and other officials, but here grievances were not redressed. The gas agency is insured with the insured companies. The officials of the first and second opposite party after visiting the house of the complainant has prepared an inspection report of the incident. But they haven’t given the inspection report to the complainant after repeated requests made by the complainant. The incident has occurred due to the deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2. The 3^rd and 4^th opposite party are also liable since they are the insurer of the first and second opposite parties, hence this complaint.

2.       The opposite parties 1 to 4 entered appearance and filed version. The first opposite party has averred that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The allegations of the complainant is that the incident happened due to the default and deficiency in service and failure to ensure proper security measures during the entire period of operation of any parts supplied by the gas company like washers, regulators, cylinders before the delivery are false. The Deputy Manager (LPG-Sales) / Field of the first opposite party conducted an investigation dated 13.09.2012. In the report he has described that the incident was caused due to electric short circuit. He has further reported that the customer confirmed that there was no gas leak after the installation of the refill. The customer confirmed that the refill supplied on 08.05.2012 was in use and the refill supplied on 11.08.2012 was given to her son for use at his residence in Aryanad. At the time of accident the cylinder was not in use. LPG was not used on the incident at all. The customer confirmed that only wooden chulah in the kitchen was used for cooking in the morning. The accumulated inflammable materials like dry woods, dry coconut, dry coconut shells etc in the kitchen also allowed the fire to spread in the kitchen easily. Because of the continuous fire on the outer surface on the cylinder and due to pressure built up from the burning materials the cylinder along with the gas exploded. The basic cause of the fire cannot be attributed to any defect in the cylinder or pressure regulator of rubber tube. The basic cause of fire is electric short circuit. The alleged accident was caused due to carelessness and negligence of the complainant herself in not following safety norms and practices described in the customer card and not due to the fault of the equipment such as cylinder and regulator. There is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the first opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with compensatory cost.

3.       The second opposite party has filed version stating that the complaint is not at all maintainable either in law or on facts. The accident caused due to electric short circuit and due to electric short circuit of the fridge, TV, fan and gas cylinder were also burned. The accident was not caused due to the leakage of the cylinder but the electric short circuit is the primary reason, that too due to the non proper electrification which were done at a low standard. As per records regarding issue of cylinder the complainant took the cylinder on a very early date and used the cylinder for more than 15 days. Usually the cylinder explodes when the pressure of gas is high. But using the cylinder for 15 days does not possible to burst because of the gas pressure in the cylinder will be very low. Cylinder was delivered on 11.08.2012 and the accident caused only on 25.08.2012 that means after 14 days of usage of the cylinder. The applicant was using country kitchen were cooking is by the wood which is also done in the same kitchen wherein the gas cylinder used for cooking, which is against the regulations of using gas as a fuel for cooking. The second opposite party is validly insured with United India Insurance Company. It is admitted by the second opposite party that the complainant is a consumer of Nirmal India as per Consumer No.7296 in the name Indira. The damage caused to the complainant to a tune of Rs.5,00,000/- is totally false. The second opposite party has never made any inspection or report. No inventory or mahassar was prepared by the police authorities regarding the damages. There is no deficiency in service from the side of the second opposite party. Hence complaint may be dismissed.

4.       The third opposite party has averred that the petition is frivolous and an abuse of process of law. It is admitted by the third opposite party that they have issued public liability policy for oil industries vide policy bearing no. 251100/46/12/9500002206 to the first opposite party covering miscellaneous LPG accident coverage which is valid from 02.05.2012 to 01.05.2013. As per the policy conditions, in the event of damage to property due to usage of LPG cylinder during the policy period of whilst such cylinder is in the process of installation of authorised customer’s registered premises or whilst lying at such registered premises, the company shall be liable to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- irrespective of legal liability. Subject to independent survey report. Further as per the policy schedule it is stated that “ the insured shall bear a compulsory excess of Rs.10,000/- for any  one accident under section one, this excess shall be applicable to both (a) death /bodily injury (b) property damage, inclusive of defence cost arising out any one accident. The company’s liability shall be for the claim in excess of such compulsory excess”. The complainant had lodged a claim under the said policy claiming damages to her house and the contents therein consequent to the fire, which took place on 25/08/2012. Claim Form dated 13/09/2012 with brief enquiry report of Pothencode Police Station, fire Report of the Station Officer, Fire and Rescue Station, Thiruvananthapuram etc was submitted by the insured that is the first opposite party vide letter dated 17/09/2012 which was received by the 3^rd  opposite party on 28/09/2012.  The third opposite party on receiving the information appointed a licensed surveyor and loss assessor for fire claim for assessing the loss. The cause of fire was due to electric short circuit which is clearly mentioned in the fire brigade report no.159/2012. The physical examination done by the surveyor confirmed that the fire was caused due to electric short circuit only. Due to electric short circuit the books kept in the house caught fire and then it spread to all inflammable materials. Due to continuous external heat the cylinder kept beneath the wooden table was finally exploded. The fire officials along with the local people managed to put up the fire by pouring water from the nearby well. As per the expert opinion the explosion of the gas cylinder happened due to the excessive heat and fire caused by electrical short circuit. The third opposite party has arrived at an amount of Rs.61,000/- after applying the depreciation as per terms and conditions of the policy. The third opposite party denies the allegations that the complainant sustained a loss to a tune of Rs.5,00,000/- due to the fire incident. There is no deficiency in service from the part of third opposite party, hence complaint may be dismissed with compensatory cost to the third opposite party.

5.       The fourth opposite party has averred that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is admitted by the fourth opposite party that they have issued a policy in the name of Thankappan Nirmalandan, Nirmal Indane, Venjaramoodu, as LPG dealers package policy for a period from 15/07/2011 to 14/12/2012 subject to the limits and liabilities mentioned in the policy. The said policy is limited to godown building, shop building, furniture fixtures including computer in showroom/ godown, stock of gas cylinders in godown, cylinders in transit, cash in transit, public liability and personal accident cover to customers limited to Rs.15,000/-. The policy assured by the fourth opposite party does not cover the damages caused to the complainant’s house.  The complainant cannot claim compensation against fourth opposite party for the material loss. The complainant is raising false allegations against the fourth opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of 4^th opposite party. Hence complaint may be dismissed with cost to the 4^th opposite party.

 Issues I & II

1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties 1 to 4 ?

ii.      Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

6.Issues (i) & (ii):- Both these issues are considered together for the sake of convenience. The complainant has filed affidavit in-lieu of chief examination and has produced 7 documents which were marked as Exts.P1 to P7.  Complainant was examined as PW1 and was cross-examined by opposite parties. During cross-examination one document was marked through complaint, as Ext.D1. Opposite parties 1 to 4 filed affidavit in-lieu of chief examination. OP1 was examined as DW1 and Ext.D2 was marked .OP1 was cross examined by OP3 & complainant. There was no oral or documentary evidence from the side opposite parties 2, 3 &4. All the parties filed argument notes.

7. It is contended by all the opposite parties that the damages caused to the complainant was due to electric short circuit and they all relied on Ext.P2. Even though in Ext.P2 it is stated that അനേഷണത്തിൽ short circute ആണ് “.But it can also be seen from Ext.P2 that “certified that the information is only in respect of the data furnished to the department not necessarily full and accurate. In any matter contained there can be determined only after proper investigation by the appropriate agency”.  So the official who prepared Ext.P2 was not sure how the house of the complainant caught fire.  In Ext.P7, the investigation report prepared by Sub Inspector of police, Pothencode, it is clearly stated that the incident happened due to the explosion of gas cylinder. Ext.D2 is prepared by Chief Area Manager of 1^st OP. Since Ext P7 was prepared by an investigating agency their report will have more sanctity than the report prepared by any of the official working under 1^st OP, hence Ext. D2 cannot be taken into evidence. The opposite parties 1 to 4 has not produced any cogent and reliable evidence to discard Ext.P7. So it is clear that the incident happened due to explosion of gas cylinder.

8.       It is admitted by 3^rd opposite party that they have issued policy to the 1^st opposite party covering miscellaneous LPG accident coverage which is valid from 2/5/2012 to 1/5/2013. The accident occurred on 25/8/2012. So 3^rd opposite party is liable for the damages occurred to the complainant due to gas cylinder explosion. Opposite party.No.4 has admitted in their version that for personal accident their claim is limited to Rs. 15,000/-. The complainant has not produced any evidence to prove that they have sustained a loss of Rs.5,00,000/-.

        In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The 3^rd & 4^th opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.90,000/- & Rs.15,000/- respectively to the complainant. The Ops 1 to 4 are jointly & severally liable to pay Rs 25,000/ as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and pay Rs.2500/- towards the cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the entire amount except cost carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

               A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

               Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 20^th day of July 2022.

                                                                                                   Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN: PRESIDENT

                                                                                                    Sd/-

PREETHA G NAIR: MEMBER

                                                                                                      Sd/-

VIJU.V.R: MEMBER

Be/

                                 APPENDIX

                            CC.NO.38/13

 List of witness for the complainant  - Mrs.Indira

List of Exhibits for the complainant

Ext.P1         - Copy of consumer’s pass bokk issued by the gas agency with consumer number

Ext.P2      - Copy of fire force report dated 25/08/2012

Ext.P3      - Copy of complaint to the revenue authority dated 05/09/2012

Ext.P4     - Copy of news paper with news of accident

Ext.P5      - Copy of letter send by complainant to the opposite parties with postal receipts dated 21/11/2012

Ext.P6      - Copy of photographs of destroyed house

Ext.P7      - Enquiry report of police dated 03/09/2012

List of witness for the opposite parties

DW1        - Soorya.S.S

List of Exhibits for the opposite parties

Ext.D1     - copy of letter dated 25/08/2012

Ext.D2     - Copy of investigation report

                                                                                              Sd/-

                                                                   PRESIDENT