The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Marketing Division, Orissa State Office, Bhubaneswar and O.P No.2 is Proprietor, M/s. Indane Gramin Vitarak, At- Gandhi Chhak, Baharda, Basta, Balasore.
1. Shorn of unnecessary details briefly stated the case of the Petitioner is that the Complainant is the wife of the deceased husband Bansidhar Pramanik, who breathed his last on 30.05.2014 at Ashwini Hospital, Cuttack causing seven burn injuries arising out of a devastating Gas tank blast on 13.05.2014 at about 6.45 A.M. The deceased husband of the Complainant was a domestic Consumer under the O.Ps vide Consumer No.3852, dt.11.06.2013. The Complainant was using the gas facilities for boiling water in a silver vessel for bathing on 13.05.2014 at about 6.45 A.M and no sooner there was loud sound and all of a sudden, the kitchen room gotted to fire and on hearing the alarm of the Complainant, the deceased husband entered into the kitchen room in order to save her. The Complainant extinguished the fire sustaining minor injury, but the flame of the fire surrounded her husband, causing severe burn injuries apart from loss of properties. Thereafter, the deceased husband of the Complainant was brought to District Headquarter Hospital, Balasore, then to Moon Hospital, Cuttack and breathed his last at Ashwini Hospital, Cuttack on 30.05.2014. Prayer for award of compensation along with interest.
2. Written version filed by O.P No.1 through their Advocate, where they have denied about maintainability, jurisdiction as well as it's cause of action. But, the fact of the case is that the O.P No.1 is not related to O.P No.2. The O.P No.1 is not liable to pay compensation on fire incident, which comes under fire insurance policy. Moreover, the Complainant is not a Consumer under O.P No.1 and there is no contract/ condition to claim compensation.
3. Written version filed by O.P No.2 through his Advocate, where he has admitted to the extent that he received the death information from the Complainant on 04.11.2015 for the first time. The Complainant wants to link the alleged incident with O.P No.2 with ulterior motive that in the month of May, 2014, People were dying in Sunstroke and the normal water was hot enough for use. The Complainant falsely stated in Para-14 of the petition that Xerox copy of F.I.R attached. He has also submitted that "as there was no leakage complaint from the Complainant side, check up of LPG refill in the kitchen and deficiency of service on the part of O.P No.2 doesn't arise”. The real fact of this case came to his knowledge on 04.11.2015 for the first time, when he received a registered letter from the Complainant about the accident after elapse of 17 months. So, the O.P No.2 requested her on 06.11.2015 to furnish F.I.R copy, Death Certificate, P.M report, All Police papers including Court case number and Fire Dept. report etc., but till date the Complainant remained silent rather she filed this case in the Forum. Then on 07.11.2015, the O.P No.2 verified the spot and found no equipments at the kitchen or in the house of the Complainant. On questioning about this fact to the family members of the Complainant and herself said that all the equipments provided by the O.P No.2 had burnt to ashes. As satisfactory answer not received from the Complainant or her family members, suspension arisen and the O.P No.2 enquired about the alleged incident from the neighborhood and he came to know that due to explosion of Refrigerator compressor gas tank, the alleged fire took place and the deceased was in the field at that time. On getting information about the fire, he rushed and entered into the kitchen and sustained burn injuries.
4. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determinations of this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable in the eye of Law.
(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case by the Complainant.
(iii) Whether this case is barred by Law of Limitation.
(iv) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps.
(v) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
5. In order to substantiate their pleas, the Complainant has filed certain documents in her support, where as the O.Ps have not filed any documents in their support. Perused the same. It is the admitted fact that the deceased husband of the Complainant was a domestic Consumer under the O.Ps vide Consumer No.3852 since 11.06.2013. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that on 13.05.2014, while the Complainant was availing the gas facilities for boiling water in a silver vessel for bathing, no sooner there was a loud sound and all of a sudden, the kitchen room gotted to fire and it was not possible to enter to the same and on hearing the alarm of the Complainant, the husband of the Complainant entered into the kitchen room in order to save her. The Complainant suffered minor burn injury, whereas her husband sustained severe burn injuries and hospitalized at District Headquarter Hospital, Balasore, then at Moon Hospital, Cuttack and at last at Ashwini Hospital, Cuttack, where he has died on 30.05.2014. It has been stated by the Complainant that such fire accident by the LPG cylinder was due to negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps, for which she claimed compensation for negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. In support of her plea, she furnished number of documents as mentioned earlier, out of which Basta Fire Station and Baliapal Fire Station submitted two fire occurrence certificates disclosing their attendance of fire accident in dwelling house of Late Bansidhar Pramanik. The certificate of Baliapal Fire Station reveals that there was out broke of fire due to cause of Gas tank explosion, but in the Basta Fire Station certificate the cause of fire accident has not been disclosed. Similarly, U.D Case Report prepared by the Police discloses about death of deceased due to accidental blasting of Indane LPG gas tank in the dwelling house of the deceased. The death certificate, Legal heir certificate are also available in the case record, which were filed by the Complainant. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the O.P No.2 that he has not received any complaint earlier from the Complainant regarding leakage of gas in her house in refilled LPG cylinder supplied to the deceased on 22.04.2014 and this incident took place on 13.05.2014. It is further argued that there is no information from the Complainant whether she has used the refilled gas cylinder for the first time or she has used the same earlier after receiving the same on 22.04.2014. After receiving information from the Complainant at a belated stage on 04.11.2015, the O.P No.2 has asked certain documents like F.I.R copy, Death Certificate, P.M report, All Police papers including Court case number and Fire Dept. report etc., but the Complainant remained silent in this regard. Then on 07.11.2015, the O.P No.2 verified the spot and found no equipments at the kitchen or in the house of the Complainant. On questioning about this fact to the family members of the Complainant, she disclosed that all the equipments provided by the O.P No.2 had burnt to ashes. As satisfactory answer has not been found from the Complainant or her family members, so suspicion arose. It has been further argued by the O.P No.2 that this O.P has no responsibility in the said gas accident and no negligence of O.P No.2 has been proved by the Complainant. So, it is argued that O.P No.2 is not liable to the claim of the Complainant. It has been argued on behalf of the O.P No.1 that he was no way associated with this gas accident and he was no way connected with supply of Gas cylinder and the Complainant was come under Fire Insurance Policy. The Complainant is not a Consumer under O.P No.1 and there is no contract/ condition to claim compensation. Further, O.P No.2 has taken a plea that on enquiry from the neighborhood of the deceased, he came to know that due to explosion of Refrigerator compressor gas tank, the alleged fire took place and the deceased was in the field at that time. On getting information about the fire, he rushed and entered into the kitchen and sustained burn injuries. But, this fact is not sustained for want of any material evidence.
6. So basing on these materials, the Complainant’s case for compensation for negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps, the deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps could not be clearly established and it cannot be said that deficiency of service without any proof against the O.Ps. No where in the record from the documents filed by both the Parties, it can’t found the cause of such fire accident, but from the material it shows that it was for LPG Gas supplied to the Complainant by the O.Ps. There are numbers of reason for gas tank explosion including misuse of the gas, want of proper caution and also deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps by supplying any faulty regulator and cylinder. No such materials are found here in this regard. But, the Advocate for Complainant has relied upon the Authority reported in 2005 (II) OLR (CSR)-75 in the case of Gajendra Nayak (Vrs.) M/s. Sangrami Gas and another, where it has been held that the O.Ps were liable to pay the compensation as defective cylinder was supplied to the Complainant. It has been due to neither the O.Ps appeared nor filed their written versions and the allegations made by the Petitioner in the compliant remained uncontroverted in absence of any specific denial by the O.Ps. But, the case in hand is different from the principle decided in that case. As in this case, both the O.Ps have appeared and filed their respective written versions and challenged the plea of the Complainant. Furthermore, in the reported case, fire accident took place while removing the safety cap to connect the regulator and there was leakage of gas from the cylinder.
7. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record and on the basis of principle laid down by the above authority as discussed above, this Forum come to the conclusion that this case is not barred by limitation and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps, for which the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Accordingly, this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, Ordered:-
O R D E R
The Consumer case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps, but in the peculiar circumstances without cost.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 20th day of June, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.
