Date of filing : 07.12.2020
Date of order : 22.02.2023
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VELLORE
PRESENT: THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A., B.L. PRESIDENT
THIRU. R. ASGHAR KHAN, B.Sc., B.L. MEMBER – I
SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, M.B.A., MEMBER-II
WEDNESDAY THE 22nd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 15/2020
Mrs. M. Suguna,
W/o. Mohan,
No.64, Drowpathiyamman Street,
Ayal Village,
Sholingur Taluk,
Ranipet District – 632 505. ...Complainant
-Vs-
1.The Proprietor,
M/s. Andal HP Gas Gramin Vitrak,
Battai Street, Rangapuram,
Banavaram Post,Sholingur Taluk,
Ranipet District – 632 505.
2. The Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Ranipet Branch,
No.17A, Krishngiri Road,
SKS Complex,
Ranipet & District - 632401. ...Opposite parties
Counsel for complainant : Thiru. T.K. Munusamy
First opposite party : Set exparte on 09.06.2022
Counsel for second opposite party : Thiru. K. Umashankar
ORDER
SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, M.B.A., MEMBER-II
This complaint has been filed Under Section 12 of consumer Protection Act 1986. The complainant has prayed this Hon’ble Commission, to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for the loss of earning power, to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for continuing or permanent disability, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering and also to pay Rs.20,000/- as loss of earning from 18.03.2020 till recovery and other expenses.
1. The case of the complaint is briefly as follows:
The complainant purchased one HP Gas domestic cylinder through consumer Number.605943 from the first opposite party’s Gas Company at Rangapuram before one week to the date of fire accident 18.03.2020. When the complainant opened the above said HP Gas cylinder for use, the gas was not coming out from the gas cylinder and hence, she was unable to use the above said gas cylinder. Mr. Mohan, who is the husband of the complaint made an oral complaint to the first opposite party to attend the trouble in the above said HP gas cylinder. On 18.03.2020 at about 11.00 a.m. when Mr.Udhayasuriyan, son of Subramanian of the 1st opposite party attended the repair in the above HP Gas cylinder unfortunately due to the leakage of gas fire has been opened and that the Complainant sustained injuries on her face, on her two hands, on her neck and on her left leg. That the above said Mr.Udhayasuriyan also sustained fire injuries on his hand and on his legs. The complaint immediately admitted into Government Hospital, Sholinghur, the Banavaram Police enquired her, recorded her statement and registered a case in Crime No.76/2020 Under section “Accidental Fire: The complainant thereafter on 18.03.2020 referred to Kilpakkam Government Medical College Hospital, Chennai for further treatment as inpatient from 18.03.2020 to 04.04.2020. The complainant sustained injuries viz., Head and neck 9%, Ant Trunk 1%, Pert Trunk 10%, Upper Limbs 12% and Lower Limbs 13%. The complainant receive totally 45% of fire injuries, hence she is unable to do any work, she is totally paralyzed and she is expecting others help to do her usual work and other. The defect in the HP Gas cylinder is a result of poor workmanship of the Manufacturer for which the complainant has suffered fire injuries, loss and damage. The first opposite party were under obligation to keep the HP Gas cylinder in perfect working condition which they have failed to do. The complainant then made oral request to the first opposite party for suitable compensation but they have acted in most negligent manner while dealing with the oral request of the complainant and she has suffered loss and injury and is entitled to the compensation. The first and second opposite parties are liable to for breach of contract as they have not complied with the terms of the guarantee and have acted extremely negligently. In attending to the complaint of the complainant and therefore, they are liable to compensate the complainant for the fire injuries, loss damage caused to her. Hence, this complaint.
2. On receipt of the notice from this Hon’ble Commission. First opposite party did not appear, the first opposite party called absent set exparte.
3 .The written version of second opposite party is briefly as follows:
This second opposite party denies the fact that the husband of the complainant made an oral complaint to the first opposite party who is the HP dealer and that on 18.03.2021 at about 11.00 AM, the delivery boy came to attend the repair and it is further false to state while attending the repair due to gas leakage, the complainant and the said Delivery boy sustained injuries on her face, hands and neck etc.. further denies that the fact that the complainant sustained injuries on her Head and neck, Ant Trunk Pert Trunk Upper Limbs and Lower Limbs and that the complainant received 45% fire injuries and it is further false to state that due to the fire injuries, the complainant is unable to do any work, totally paralyzed and expecting others help to do her usual work. Except the Discharge Summary there is no medical records to show that the complainant sustained the above injuries and in the absence of any medical certificate, disability certificate, the nature of injuries pleaded by the complainant are strongly denied. Further denies the allegation that the defect is in the HP Gas Cylinder which is a result of poor workmanship of the manufacturer and it is further false to state that the first and second opposite party parties are liable for breach of contract and they have not complied with the terms of guarantee and have extremely negligently in attending to the complaint of the complainant and it is further false to state that the first and second opposite parties are liable to pay compensation for the alleged injuries. The first opposite party was insured with this second opposite party as per the LPG dealers package schedule policy bearing 413502/48/2020/412 with effect from 27.12.2019 to 26.12.2020. This second opposite party would further submits that as per the policy terms section VII – personal, when the public liability for the death is proved, the maximum compensation is Rs.10,00,000/- only. But, the complainant having failed to prove that she sustained injuries because of the fire accident and that too while attending repair by the delivery boy of the first opposite party, the complainant and in the absence of any material evidence i.e., Disability Certificate , Medical Certificate etc., the contention of the complainant that due to burn injury she was completely paralyzed etc., and the compensation claim of the complainant seeking Rs.8,20,000/- from this second opposite party was not at all maintainable and on this short ground itself this compensation petition is liable to be dismissed. The alleged claims under the head of loss of earning power, continuing permanent disability, pain, and suffering and loss of earning from the date of incident till recovery are all to be proved by the complainant. the complainant has to prove that she called the delivery boy of the first opposite party and that the complainant has to further prove that how she can able to claim compensation for the loss of earning power, containing permanent disability, and pain and suffering and loss of earning from the date of accident till recovery. This second opposite party came to know from the reliable sources that the complainant attempted to attend the repair work by using third persons and invited the accident and hence there is no question of service defect and hence the complainant is not eligible for any compensation from the second opposite party. For the above said reasons alone, the first opposite party is not at all co-operating with this second opposite party, colluded with the complainant and the said delivery boy for the purpose of false claim. The above contention that the claim is highly fanciful gross exaggerated and utterly disproportionate, and there is no date provided for the alleged claim. The alleged claim does not confirm to the provisions of Consumer Disputes Act and the claim only shoes the attitude of the applicants to fortune our or misfortune. Therefore, this Hon’ble commission may be pleased dismissed the claim petition with costs.
4. Proof affidavit of complainant filed. Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked. Proof affidavit of second opposite party filed. Ex.B1 marked. Written arguments of both sides filed. Oral arguments of both sides heard.
5. The Points that arises for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed in the complaint?
3. To what relief, the complainant is entitled to?
6. POINT NOS. 1 & 2: The complainant is a Customer under the first opposite party who is a firm as engaged as a distributor of LPG Gas leakage used for purpose domestic fuel. The complainant booked a cylinder with the first opposite party. After took the delivery of the said Gas cylinder, the complainant attempted to open the Gas cylinder, but the gas was not coming out. Therefore she made a complaint with the first opposite party in turn the first opposite party sent a service personnel namely Udhayasurian to attend the aforesaid repair on 18.03.2020 at about 11.00 a.m. the said Udhayasurian came to the complainant’s house when he was attempted to repair the Gas cylinder, unfortunately a fire was engulfed. Therefore, the complainant and the service personnel as well sustained severe burn injuries. The complainant immediately rushed to the Government Hospital at Sholingur. Thereafter, the Banavaram Police also enquired and registered an FIR Crime No. 76/2020. Since, the complainant suffered with severe burn injuries, she was referred to Government Medical College Hospital, Kilpauk, Chennai for further treatment. Where she was given treatment as inpatient from 18.03.2020 to 04.04.2020 the complainant suffered 45% burn injuries. The allegation of the complainant is that she could not work, as if she was working prior to the aforesaid accident. She also totally paralyzed and expecting others help to do her day to day affairs. The allegation of the complainant is that it is happened only because of defective cylinder supplied by the first opposite party. Therefore, the first opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the suffering of the complainant. Since, the opposite party insured with the third opposite party for any untoward incident happened due to defective cylinder etc., Therefore, the second opposite party liable to compensate the complainant on behalf of the first opposite party. Hence, filed this complaint. The first opposite party though received notice from the Commission they have not chosen to appear this Hon’ble Commission therefore called absent and set exparte. In so far as the second opposite party is concerned, they appeared and filed written version stating that though they have admitting the accident, the opposite party only disputing that in the absence of any medical certificate and disability certificate the nature of injuries pleaded by the complainant could not be established. Further, they also alleged that the defect is in the HP Gas cylinder which is a result of poor workmanship of the manufacturer and it is further the first opposite party insured with the second opposite party as per LPG dealer package schedule policy bearing 413502/48/2020/412 with effect from 27.12.2019 to 26.12.2020. The said policy when the public liability for the death is proved the maximum compensation is Rs.10,00,000/- only. But the complainant have failed to prove that she sustained injuries because of fire accident and that too while attending the delivery boy of the first opposite party. In the absence of any material evidence, medical certificate, disability certificate. The contention of the complainant that injuries caused due to the aforesaid fire accident and the compensation claim of Rs.8,20,000/- was not at all maintainable. Therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. In this regard, we gone through the medical records submitted by the complainant which shows that the complainant suffered with 45% burn injuries. Therefore, the allegation of opposite party that there is no medical records to prove the injury is not sustainable. The complainant was marked the medical records as Ex.A5. The only dispute raised by the opposite party is that there is no medical records to prove the injury. On the other hand the complainant produced prove the medical records which was marked as Ex.A5 and also they are disputing the quantum.
In this regard, we have referred the
THE NATIOANAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI On 3 October, 2006
Mrs. Madhuri Govilkar, Widow
Vs.
Hindustan Petroleum
Held that,
Para 22. In our view, this shows a typical negative approach on the part of
the officers of the Insurance Company and such type of preparation
of false défence increases the litigation in this country. In any case,
such défence on the part of the Nationalised Insurance Company is
totally unjustifiable.
Therefore, in our consider opinion, whenever there is an accident happened where there is a Insurance Policy, it is for the second opposite party to compensate suitably. In the present case, also at the time of accident, the policy was in forced. Therefore, the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant suitably. But the complainant some or other reasons they have not settle the claim of the complainant before approached this Hon’ble Commission. Therefore, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, these Point Nos.1 and 2 are decided in favour of the complainant.
8. POINT NO.3:
As we have decided in Point Nos.1 and 2 that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties-1 and 2. The opposite parties-1 and 2 are jointly or severally directed to pay Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) as compensation for loss of earning power and continuing or permanent disability and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant.
In the result, this complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are jointly or severally directed to pay Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) as compensation for loss of earning power and continuing or permanent disability and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant, within Two month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order to till the date of realization.
Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 22nd February,2023.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER – I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.A1 - Copy of Aadhaar card of the complainant
Ex.A2 - Copy of the Family card of the complainant
Ex.A3 - Copy of F.I.R
Ex.A4 - Copy of Insurance Policy- The Oriental Insurance
company limited
Ex.A5 - Copy of Hospital treatment papers
Ex.A6 - Copy of consumer card
Ex.A7 - Copy of consumer deposit receipt given by HPCL
LIST OF SECOND OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.B1 - Copy of Policy copy with schedule
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER – I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
