DATE OF FILING : 03.02.2010
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI Dated this the 31st day of July, 2010
Present: SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER C.C No.30/2010 Between Complainant : Joseph, Pappadiyil House, Valara P.O, 14th Mile, Adimali, Idukki District. (By Adv: Shiji Joseph) And Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager, Gee Vee Gas Agencies, Munnar, Idukki District. (By Adv: Naiju Raveendranath) 2. The Manager, Public Relations, Indian Oil Corporation, Ambalamughal, Ernakulam. (By Advs: C.S.Dias & T.J.Augustine) 3. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Adimali Branch, Adimali – 685 561, Idukki District. (By Adv: Thomas Sebastian) O R D E R SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
The complainant is a consumer of the domestic gas connection No.19887825 issued by the Ist opposite party, who is the distributor of the gas cylinders of the 2nd opposite party. On 1.05.2009 the Ist opposite party supplied a new refill cylinder to the complainant. On 21.05.2009, after using the same for cooking, the gas stove and regulator were switched off by the complainant. But the gas leaked from the cylinder through regulator and the liquid spread over the floor. On seeing the same, the complainant, his wife and son tried to extinguish the fire in the nearby hearth to prevent the fire with the help of a wet gunny bag. In that attempt the fire caught to the gas and due to that, the complainant, his wife and son were suffered serious burn injuries. They were admitted to Morning Star Hospital, Adimali and from there they were sent to Medical College Hospital, Kolencherry. The complainant spent Rs.20,000/- for the treatment. Due to the fire, some portions of the house was damaged and Rs.20,000/- was spent for repairing and repainting. Serious mental agony also caused to them. The accident was happened due to the poor maintenance of the gas cylinder and regulator. The gas was somehow leaked through the nozzle of the cylinder. When the cylinder was kept ideal gas was leaked through nozzle of the cylinder, spread over the kitchen and caught fire from the nearby hearth. After extinguishing the fire the staff of the Ist opposite party came to the house, they pulled out the washer of the cylinder and replaced a new one, thus the gas leakage was stopped. On 4th August 2009, the complainant constrained to issue a lawyer notice to the Ist and 2nd opposite parties demanding Rs.90,000/- as compensation for the same including Rs.50,000/- for mental agony. A reply was issued by the Ist opposite party stating that they are insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited and they took all steps for getting the compensation. But the complainant never received any compensation from the opposite parties and hence this petition is filed.
2. The Ist opposite party filed a written version and stated that the refill cylinders supplying to the consumers are thoroughly checked and sealed from the company itself. Since the washer is inside the seal, which cannot be open in any way by the Ist opposite party. The Ist opposite party is not responsible for any damage if any caused as alleged. Moreover, in this case the functioning of the cylinder and regulator were counter checked at the time of delivery of the cylinder. In violation of the security precaution norms for LPG, has kept the gas cylinder and hot plate near a hearth. If any burn injury was sustained to the complainant and his family members that may be due to the illegal and unscientific acts of the complainant. The opposite party never stopped the leakage by replacing new washer and no leakage was found in the cylinder when checked the cylinder by the opposite party. All the consumers of the Ist opposite party are insured with the United India Insurance company Limited, Adimali branch vide policy No.101104/46/08/22/00000173 and the Ist opposite party has taken every steps to enable swift processing of the claim in favour of the complainant by furnishing necessary information including the FIR and related records to the insurance company, inspite of the fact that the complainant has not taken due precautions in handling the same. So the Gee Vee Gas Agency is not liable to pay any compensation.
3. As per the written version of the 2nd opposite party, the gas allegedly leaked only due to the negligence and laches on the part of the complainant and his family members, who were careless in using the gas connection. The compensation claimed by the complainant as Rs.90,000/- is not liable to pay by the 2nd opposite party. There is no cause of action to file this complaint against this opposite party. The deficiency in service is only alleged against the insurer, the 3rd opposite party who has refused to indemnify the loss of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy. So there is no deficiency in the part of the 2nd opposite party.
4. As per the written version filed by the 3rd opposite party, they have denied the allegation of the leakage of gas from the cylinder through the regulator, fire caught to the gas and the complainant, his wife and his son suffered serious burn injuries. No damage is caused to the house of the complainant due to this. The 3rd opposite party has issued an LPG Dealers Package Policy No.101104/46/08/22/00000173 to the Ist opposite party M/s.GeeVee Gas Agencies, Munnar, for coverage of fire, burglary and public liability subject to terms and conditions contained in the said policy. As per the conditions of the above said policy, the claim of the complainant is not covered by the above said policy. As per Section 1 (Fire and Allied Perils) in the policy condition, the 3rd opposite party is liable to indemnify the insured in respect of loss or damage to the building or contents owned by the insured which contained in the insured premises by fire. So the provisions in Section 1 in the policy condition have no application in this case since the property lost by fire was not owned by the insured and accident took place was not in the premises of the insured. So the claim for loss or damage to the building or contents owned by the insured is only covered under Section I in the policy. Therefore the claim for damages to the house of the complainant is not covered by the said policy. As per Section VII(Public Liability) in the policy condition, the 3rd opposite party (insurer) is liable to indemnify the insured against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in the event of accidental bodily injury to any person or accidental damage to property in connection with trade or business occurred at any insured's premises or at any registered address of the customer only whilst being installed by the insured under his employees. So the provisions in Section VII in the policy condition have no application in this case since accidental bodily injury to any person and accidental damage to property were took place not while the cylinder being installed by the insured's employees. The accident took place not while the cylinder being installed by the employees of the insured. But the alleged accident was occurred while the complainant's family members alone used it. The employees of the insured were not present in the complainant's house at the time of accident. Since the alleged accident occurred in the house of the complainant not while installing the cylinder by the insured's employees, as per Section VII of the policy condition, this opposite party has no liability to compensate the complainant for the damage sustained. So this opposite party is not liable to indemnify the Ist opposite party since the claim of the complainant is not covered under public liability as defined in Section VII of the policy. The Ist opposite party has not paid premium for personal accident coverage for the policy. So the complainant is not entitled to get coverage under Section IX(Personal Accident) in the policy condition. Therefore the claim of the complainant is not covered by the policy. So the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from this opposite party. Moreover, the Ist opposite party violated the conditions of the policy. As per policy condition the insured is bound to give immediate notice in writing of the claim to this opposite party. But the insured had only intimated on 7.08.2009. Therefore the intimation of the incident is given only after 2 ½ months of occurrence. So there is clear violation of policy condition. The insured shall deliver to the insurer, within 14 days of the date of accident, a detailed statement of the loss or damage with an estimate of the value of the property lost and the amount of damage sustained. But the Ist opposite party, the insured, has not submitted claim form or relevant documents to the 3rd opposite party. The Ist opposite party, the insured, has not submitted medical bills and survey report, photographs in support of damage to the building. So there is clear violation of policy condition. Therefore this opposite party could not arrange independent surveyor to assess the value of the property lost. Since the Ist opposite party violated the conditions of the policy, this opposite party is not liable to indemnify the insured.
5. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to? 6. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P10(series) marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DWs 1 and 2 and Exts.R1 to R6 marked on the side of the opposite parties.
7. The POINT :- The petition is filed for getting the treatment expenses of the complainant and his family and also for compensation, for the damages caused to their house by fire due to the leakage of domestic gas. The complainant is examined as PW1. On 21.05.2009 after using the gas for cooking, the regulator of the cylinder was switched off. But the gas started to leak from the regulator and it was told by the wife of PW1. When PW1 entered into the kitchen the gas was fully spread like smoke in the kitchen. There was fire in the hearth near to the gas stove. So in order to prevent fire from the hearth to the gas stove, the complainant tried to cover the same with a wet gunny bag. But unfortunately the fire fully spread in the kitchen. PW1, his wife and son were caused severe burn injuries. They were admitted in the Morning Star Hospital, Adimali and then referred to Medical College Hospital, Kolencherry. Police registered an FIR for this incident on 22.05.2009, copy of the same is marked as Ext.P1. A statement was given to the police by the complainant and a copy of the same is marked as Ext.P2. A spot mahazar was also prepared by the police, copy of the same is marked as Ext.P3. The discharge summary issued from the Morning Star Medical Centre, Adimali and Medical College Hospital, Kolencherry are marked as Ext.P5(series). The photographs of the complainant showing the injuries are marked as Ext.P9(series). Complainant spent Rs.18,917/- for medical expenses and Ext.P10(series) are the bills for the same issued from the Medical College Hospital, Kolencherry and also from the Morning Star Hospital, Adimali. But the opposite parties never paid any compensation to the complainant. So the complainant was constrained to send a lawyer notice dated 4.08.2009 to the opposite party, copy of the same is marked as Ext.P4. A reply was issued by the Ist opposite party, which is marked as Ext.P6. The copy of the LPG Dealers Package policy issued from the United India Insurance Company Limited is marked as Ext.P7. A person from the 3rd opposite party insurance company visited the complainant at hospital. One of the customer card given by the opposite party at the time of availing the gas connection is marked as Ext.R1. The inspection of domestic LPG installations done by a mechanic and copy of the inspection memo is marked as Ext.P8. As per the cross examination of the learned counsel for the opposite party, PW1 deposed that the gas cylinder was received with seal from the opposite party but it was connected by the complainant himself to the regulator. DW1 is the Branch Manager of the 3rd opposite party. Ext.R2(series) is the copy of LPG Dealers Package Policy issued by DW1. A letter was issued by the Ist opposite party to the 3rd opposite party on 7.08.2009 enclosing the FIR and spot mahazar of the police, copy of the same is marked as Ext.R3. The claim form of the Ist opposite party given to the 3rd opposite party is marked as Ext.R4. As per DW1, they are not liable to indemnify the same because the policy is only an LPG Dealers Package policy in which the insured is the Ist opposite party which gives coverage to the insured only and the coverage is limited to the terms and conditions for the public. 8. As per Section VII of the conditions of the policy, Public Liability : The company will indemnify the insured(or in the event of the death of the insured his legal representative) against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in the event of
(a) Accidental bodily injury to any person(not being either a member of the insured's family or a person engaged in and upon the service of the insured at the time of occurrence giving rise to such injury nor a person claiming against the, insured under any workmen's compensation act) (b) Accidental damage to property(not being property of or belonging to or in the custody or under the control of the insured' or any person in the services of the insured or upon which the insured or any such person is or has been working if that damage results directly from such work) happening during the period of insurance specified in the schedule in connection with the Trade/Business as described in the schedule.
i) At any Insured's premises specified in the schedule. ii) At any registered address of the customers only whilst being installed by the insured under his employees. iii) Whilst the Gas cylinders are being carried by the insured and/or his employees. The maximum amount payable by the Company as compensation including litigation expenses in respect of anyone claim or series of claims arising from one accident event and for all accidents events during anyone period of insurance shall not exceed Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only). 9. The information was received from the Ist opposite party after 2 months. The claim is not rejected by the 3rd opposite party but it is pending with the 3rd opposite party. As per the cross examination of the learned counsel for the complainant, DW1 deposed that it is a compulsory insurance scheme, it is covering the third party risk. The beneficiary is the customer and the insured is the authorised agent. The insured have to intimate this opposite party and the claim form and policy should also be filled by the insured. No documents for processing the claim was received from the Ist opposite party. The claim form was received only on 26.04.2010 which is after filing the complaint before this Forum. DW2 is the Managing Partner of the Ist opposite party. DW2 received information about the incident on 22.05.2009 and he himself investigated at the spot. The first column of the claim form was filled by DW2 and second column was filled by the Adimali branch Manager of DW2, it was filled in front of the Branch Manager of the 3rd opposite party. The balance columns were not filled by DW2. But the signature was affixed by DW2. As per Clause 7 and 10, the 3rd opposite party is liable to pay the compensation. All the documents were given to the 3rd opposite party by DW2. Information was also given to the 2nd opposite party by DW2, one person from the Indian Oil Corporation visited the spot and also the complainant at hospital.
10. As per the complainant, the gas was leaked from the regulator and spread in the kitchen when the regulator was switched off. While preventing from spreading the fire from the hearth the accident was caused. But as per the Ist and 2nd opposite parties, the accident was caused because of the carelessness of the complainant while using the domestic gas. The security precautions were not taken by the complainant so the fire was caught from the nearby hearth. As per the 3rd opposite party, they are not liable to indemnify the loss because the policy is only an LPG Dealers Package policy so they are not liable to indemnify the public, only limited to the insured who is M/s.Gee Vee Gas agency. They are liable to pay the compensation if any accident is caused while the insured persons were connecting the gas cylinder to the stove at any customer's residence. Here the accident was not caused while it was connecting by the Ist opposite party, insured.
11. The accident is admitted by the opposite parties, it is also clear from Ext.P3, Spot mahazar prepared by the police and from Ext.P1, FIR. The fire has spread in the kitchen of the complainant's residence. The complainant and his family members were got injury due to that. Ext.P9(series) photographs also shows that the complainant was injured by the same. As per the Ist opposite party, they are not liable to indemnify the same, because they duly insured with the 3rd opposite party. As per Ext.R1, the domestic gas customer card issued by the opposite parties, in page No.37 as clause No.5, it is written that “All distributors are required to obtain third party risk insurance coverage in favour of the customers against any LPG/Equipment related accident at the registered address of the authorised customer”. So it is the duty of the Ist opposite party to obtain a third party risk insurance coverage in favour of the customers against any accident. As per the Ist opposite party they have duly insured the same with the 3rd opposite party and they are liable for the same. As per the cross examination of the learned counsel for the complainant, DW1 deposed that it is a compulsory insurance scheme, its coverage is the third party risk, the beneficiary is the customer and the insured is the authorised agency. So if any mistake happened to the Ist opposite party in insuring the customers, the customers are not liable for the same. It is the duty of the Ist and 2nd opposite parties to insure the customers. The 2nd opposite party who is issuing the gas cylinders must make sure that there should not be any leakage to the LPG cylinders. As per the complainant, the accident was caused because of the leakage of gas from the regulator while it was switched off. No investigation has been conducted by the 2nd opposite party or the Ist opposite party or the 3rd opposite party to confirm that the accident was caused due to any other reason other than the leakage from the regulator or because of the complaint of the rubber washer. The opposite parties never proved that the accident is occurred not due to the negligence from the part of the Ist and 2nd opposite parties. Here, as per the Ist and 2nd opposite parties, the customer is duly insured and the 3rd opposite party is liable for paying the compensation. But as per the 3rd opposite party, they are not liable because the insurance coverage is only for the Ist opposite party. So we think that the opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 are liable to compensate the customers and if any mistake is caused from opposite parties 1 to 3, the customers are not at all liable for the same. As per the opposite parties, the claim form was received by the 3rd opposite party only after filing this petition before this Forum and now it is pending at the opposite party's office. It is a gross deficiency from the part of the opposite parties to deny the claim of the complainant for getting compensation for the accident.
12. The complainant produced a bill of Rs.18,917/- as per Ext.P10(series) for the treatment expenses caused to him due to the injury. There is no evidence produced by the complainant to show that there is some damages caused to the residential building of the complainant. Ext.P2 mahazar states that some colour change has caused to the wall of the kitchen and some steel vessels were also damaged. There is no proof regarding the same and there is no evidence produced by the complainant showing the same. No bill or estimate produced to show the repair of the house. It may be true that some mental agony and physical pain caused to the complainant and his family due to this. The complainant has treated at Medical College Hospital, Kolencherry and also in another hospital for several days . The treatment certificate and Ext.P9(series) photographs shows that the injuries are not at all small. So we think that Rs.10,000/- can be awarded as compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant and his family due to this accident.
Hence the petition allowed. The Ist, 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.28,917/- to the complainant as compensation for the damages caused to him with 12% interest from the date of this petition and Rs.2,000/- as cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of July, 2010 Sd/-
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) Sd/-
SMT. SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER) Sd/-
SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
APPENDIX Depositions : On the side of Complainant : PW1 - Joseph On the side of Opposite Parties : DW1 - P.Thankaraj DW2 - G.Vaikundam Exhibits: On the side of Complainant: Ext.P1 - Photocopy of FIR dated 22.05.2009 prepared by Sri.P.K.Sivan, A.S.I of Police, Adimali Police Station Ext.P2 - Photocopy of Statement dated 22.05.2009 given by the complainant to the Adimali Police Ext.P3 - Photocopy of Spot Mahazar dated 23.05.2009 prepared by Sri.P.K.Sivan, A.S.I of Police, Adimali Police Station Ext.P4 - Copy of Lawyer Notice dated 4.08.2009 issued by the advocate of the complainant to the Ist and 2nd opposite parties Ext.P5(series) - Discharge Summary issued from the Morning Star Medical Centre, Adimali and Medical College Hospital, Kolencherry Ext.P6 - Reply letter dated 11.08.2009 issued by the Ist opposite party to the complainant Ext.P7 - Photocopy of LPG Dealers Package Policy No.101104/46/08/22/00000173 Ext.P8 - Carbon copy of Inspection Memo dated 22.1.2008 given by the Mehanic for Inspecting the LPG Installations of the complainant Ext.P9(series) - Photographs(12 Nos) Ext.P10(series) - Medical Bills issued from the Medical College Hospital, Kolencherry and Morning Star Medical Centre, Adimali(47 Nos) On the side of Opposite Parties : Ext.R1 - Domestic Gas Customer Card in favour of U.Pathu Ext.R2(series) - Photocopy of LPG Dealers Package Policy No.101104/46/08/22/00000173 Ext.R3 - Photocopy of Ist opposite party's letter dated 7.08.2009 addressed to the 3rd opposite party Ext.R4 - Claim Form of the Ist opposite party given to the 3rd opposite party Ext.R5 - Photocopy of Partnership Deed Ext.R6 - Photocopy of Complaint filed by the Ist opposite party against the 3rd opposite party, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimali
| | [HONORABLE Sheela Jacob] Member[HONORABLE Laiju Ramakrishnan] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Bindu Soman] Member | | 
