Kerala

Kasaragod

CC/97/2019

Mr Abdul Naseer - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorised signatory - Opp.Party(s)

Benny Jose

15 Jun 2023

ORDER

C.D.R.C. Kasaragod
Kerala
 
Complaint Case No. CC/97/2019
( Date of Filing : 22 May 2019 )
 
1. Mr Abdul Naseer
S/o B A Sulaiman R/at B S Manzil Kunil Mogral Puthur
Kasaragod
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Authorised signatory
Bharath Petroleum corporation Ltd No 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road Post Box No 688 Ballard estate
Mumbai
Maharastra
2. Comfort Bharat Gas A/C
Blue Flame Gas,N.A.Quarters,Paduvadukkam,Muttathody,Kasaragod
Kasaragod
Kerala
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited
ICICI Lombard House,414,Veer Savarkar Marg,Near Sidhivinayak Temple,Prabhadevi,Mumbai-400025
Mumbai
Maharashtra
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. KRISHNAN K PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Beena.K.G. MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. RadhaKrishnan Nair M MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 15 Jun 2023
Final Order / Judgement

            D.O.F:22/05/2019

                                                                                                          D.O.O:15/06/2023

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD

CC.97/2019

Dated this, the 15th day of June 2023

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                          : PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M   : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                          : MEMBER

 

Abdul Naseer,

S/o B.A Sulaiman

R/at B.S Manzil, Kunnil,

Mogral Puttur,

Kasaragod Taluk and District                           : Complainant

(Adv: Benny Jose)

 

                                                                      And

  1. The authorized Signatory,

Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd,

No.4 & 6, Currimbhoy Road

Post Box No. 688,

Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400001.

(Adv: Sanjana.R. Nair & Harshitha.K.M)

 

  1. Compfort Bharath Gas

Blue Flame Gas

NA Quarters, Paduvadukkam

Muttathody, Kasaragod

 

  1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd

ICICI Lombard House, 414, veer Savarkar

Mary, Near Sidhivinayak Temple,

Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400025.

(Adv: A.C .Ashok Kumar)

ORDER

SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT

 

               The case of the complainant in short is that he is a customer of Opposite Party No:1, Bharath petroleum Mumbai. Since 2012 he is using LPG connection of domestic cylinder for his home.  His consumer number is 56677020.  The complainant is working is gulf and gas connection used by his wife and children at home.  On 21/11/2017 at 2.30 am, while his wife entered the kitchen to boil water, stove is switched on, fire caught up due to leakage of LPG from regulator.  His wife suffered serious injuries removed to hospital Kasaragod.  For expert treatment shifted to Manglore . But his wife died leaving behind two children aged 8 and 3 years. His case is that leakage is due to manufacturing defect of regulator and Opposite Parties are legally liable to compensate complainant.  The complainant seeking compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs.

2.       The Opposite Party No:1 filed its written version.  The Opposite Party admits that complainant is a consumer but name of his wife and child are shown is different name.  The claim is settled between the parties, a discharge voucher is signed having received Rs. Six lakhs towards full and final settlement.  This fact is suppressed by complainant. Gas cyilinder and regulator are made as per gas cylinder Rules 2004.  The Opposite Party has obtained insurance and thus Bharath Petroleum and insurance company are necessary parties. Allegation of faulty regulators or thereby accident occurred is denied.  As per report cause of accident was a back fire caught up while lightening the burner due to non standard stove.  Hence Opposite Party No: 1 is not liable for compensation.

     As per IA order 246/2019 Opposite Party No:2 and 3 were impleaded.  Opposite PartyNo:2 set exparte.  Opposite Party No:3 filed version stating that complainant is a authorized customer and so section 11 of the policy is applicable to him.  As per which section II (a) personal accident for Rs. 6 lakh per person per accident is a maximum liability agreed to pay by company.  Therefore Opposite Party has paid the said amount in time as full satisfaction of the claim.  Hence there is no deficiency in service from Opposite Party No: 3 and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

3.       The complainant filed chief affidavit and marked documents Ext A1 to A16 on 29/07/2021.  Ext A1 consumer pass book, Ext A2 is Copy of LPG connection certificate Ext A3 is FIR, Ext A4 is seizer Mahaser, Ext A5 is final report, Ext A6 is wound certificate, Ext A7 is discharge summary, Ext A8 is discharge bill, Ext A9 is discharge summary, Ext A10 is discharge bill by unity hospital Ext A11 is credit bill, Ext A12 Pharmacy bill, Ext A13 medical bill, Ext A14 is postmortem report, Cd’s marked as Ext A15 and A16.

4.       The Opposite Party No:1 produced documents marked as Ext B1 to B6.  Ext B1 is the discharge voucher, Ext B2 insurance policy, Ext B3 is legal heir ship certificate, Ext B4 the policy, Ext B5 proof of online transaction of Rs. 6 lakh to the complainant.  The Opposite Party No:3 filed documents Ext B6 is authorization letter.

 Following points arise for consideration in the case

  1. Whether death of complainant’s wife is due to accident arising out of  manufacturing defect of LPG Cylinder? And thus whether there is deficiency in service or negligence in the service of Opposite Parties?
  2. Whether payment of agreed amount discharge is full liability or whether complainant is debarred from claiming enhanced amount than originally agreed?
  3. Whether complainant is entitled to claim any insurance benefits/compensation and if so for what reliefs?

All the points are discussed together?

4.      It is very pertinent to note that complainant did not disclose the fact that disputes are settled or he received rupees six lakhs as per settlement.  But the fact that he has received part payment will not prevent him from claiming just compensation.  The Opposite Party No:3 admitted policy.  Also admitted death of party due to accident by LPG cylinder.  Insurance policy admitted by company the liability and even paid a portion of amount claimed voluntarily and contents that payment of agreed amount would discharge its liability and no amount is due to and no right to claim any more.

5.      Now short question for consideration is what is the just compensation for death of complainants wife in the circumstances of the case and whether payment already made is sufficient  to cover just compensation or not.

6.      Payment of Rs. 6 lakh alone is need as above as agreed amount, now present claim is in the case is for Rs.20 lakh as compensation.

7.     While calculating amount of just compensation it is to be borne is mind that deceased is a house wife aged about 25 years at the time of death.  She has no regular income.

     [2023] AIR SC 868

     National Insurance company Ltd Vs chief Electoral officer Supreme Court of India

8.     Civil No/Appeal No. 4769 of 2022 decided on 08/02/2023 (A) Insurance; teams of insurance policy are to be strictly construed Insurance contractor having distinctive features such as utmost good faith, insurable interest, indemnify subrogation, contribution and proximate cause which are common to all types of insurance insured cannot clean anything more than what is covered by insurance policy clauses of an insurance policy have to be read as they are consequently terms of insurance policy that fix responsibility of insurance company must also be read strictly paras 26, (paras 24,31 to 36)

9.            In view of settled position of law insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by insurance policy as they are clauses of an insurance policy have to be read as they are.  As per policy terms, Ext B2 liability in the case of death is limited to 6 lakh only.  As per Ext B2 liability to Rs. 6,00,000/- per accident per person.  The said amount is already been paid evidenced by online transfer for Ext B5 dated 27/03/2019.  The complainant has given discharge voucher Ext A4 as per settled law, he is not entitled to get any amount more than Six lakh covered by contract.  But the complainant has incurred medical bills, Ext B8 bill shown as amount of Rs. 32750/-spent in KIMS Hospital Kasaragod dated 26/02/2020 unity hospital discharge bill shown a bill for Rs. 1,90,950/-  All bill shows Rs. 190609.99 is spent in Father Muller hospital Manglore dated 02/01/2018.

10.          Since there is a limit of Rs. 2 lakh is case of accident per person, Opposite Party No:3 is directed to pay Rs. 2 lakh towards medical bills payable to the complainant.  Since insurance amount already paid even before filing complaint, complainant has already received the amount and discharge voucher issued.

11.          The complainant is not entitled to claim any amount towards insurance except medical bills as above. Complainant is not entitled for any compensation as claimed but complainant is entitled for litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- considering the nature and circumstance of the case.  Claim for compensation is rejected for the reason as above.

     In the result complaint is allowed in part Opposite Party No:3 is hereby directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) towards medical bills and also to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rupees Ten thousand only) towards litigation cost to the complainant with 30 days of the receipt of the order.

     Sd/-                                                Sd/-                                   Sd/-

MEMBER                                         MEMBER                          PRESIDENT

 

Exhibits

A1- Consumer Pass book

A2- Copy of LPG connection certificate

A3- FIR

A4- Mahazar

A5- Final report

A6- Wound certificate

A7- Discharge Summary

A8- Bill

A9- Discharge summary

A10- Discharge bill

A11-Bill Receipt

A12-Cash bill

A13-  Pharmacy bill

A14- Postmortem report

A15 & 16 – CD

B1- Discharge voucher

B2- Policy schedule

B3- Certificate issued by the Taluk office

B4- Discharge voucher

B5- Proof of online Transfer

B6- Authorization letter

 

Witness Examined

Pw1- Abdul Naseer

Dw1- Sachin Ekanath Kharche

      Sd/-                                     Sd/-                                             Sd/-

MEMBER                               MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT

 

Forwarded by Order

 

                                                                      Assistant Registrar

Ps/

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. KRISHNAN K]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Beena.K.G.]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. RadhaKrishnan Nair M]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.