IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2016
Present: - Smt. G.Vasanthakumari, President
Adv. Ravisusha, Member
Adv.M.Praveen Kumar, Member
CC.No.208/2012
Ramla Beevi.M.S : Complainant
W/o Late Muhammed Sali
Mandamthalam , Mullikala
Thevalakkara P.O
Kollam
[By Adv.Sudheesh Kumar.C & U.Ullas Kumar]
V/S
1. The Senior Area Manager : Opposite parties
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd
Area Office, Panampally
Cochin
[By Adv.S.Riyas, Kollam]
2. The Proprietor
Keerti Indane Services
Ambady Shopping Complex
Mynagappally P.O
Kollam
[By Adv. George Mathews, Kollam[
3. The Manager (Additional Opposite party)
M/s National Insurance Co.Ltd
Corporate Regional Office
Regional Insurance Building, 2nd Floor, 12 JRD Tata Road
Mumbai (Impleaded as per order in IA.286/12 dated 6.12.12)
[By Adv.S.Dileep Kumar, Kollam]
4. The Manager (Additional Opposite party)
M/s New India Assurance Co.Ltd, Land Mortgage Building
Chinnakkada
Kollam ( Impleaded as per order in IA 287/12 dated 06/12/12)
[By Adv.Sarath Chandra Menon, Kollam]
ORDER
ADV. M. PRAVEEN KUMAR, MEMBER
Complainant’s case is that the complainant had obtained domestic cooking gas connection from the 1st opposite party through the 2nd opposite party. The opposite parties have been providing domestic cooking gas to the complainant. On 25/04/2012, the opposite parties supplied to the complainant a filled gas cylinder . At about 4 PM the said filled gas cylinder was
(2)
brought to and kept in the complainant’s kitchen by the brother of the complainant Shri.Shaji. After keeping the said cylinder in the kitchen, the complainant switched on the electric light in the kitchen, but all on a sudden the cylinder caught fire and fire began to pass up from the cap of the cylinder. By seeing it the complainant and the other persons who were in the house at that time went out and escaped from the house and the cylinder exploded with a huge sound and fire spread over the entire portion of the kitchen and other part of the house and the entire portion of the kitchen and the chimney was exploded.
In the said fire and explosion. Roof, wall, chimney, ventilator, and door of the kitchen and the other part of the house and the furniture and utensils and other valuable articles stored in the house are broken and burnt. That the fire and explosion occurred solely due to the utter negligence on the part of the counter petitioner by supplying gas cylinder which was subject to leakage. Counter petitioner have willfully committed breach of duty and supplied dangerous and useless filled cylinder which is subject to leakage with the full knowledge that if the cylinder is subject to leakage it would cause explosion and fire. The acts of the counter petitioners amount to deficiency in service. As a result of the said fire and explosion the complainant has incurred a loss of above Rs.5,00,000/- as a result of the destruction of the house of the complainant had incurred a loss of above Rs.4,00,000/- and as a result of the loss of the articles of the complainant had incurred a loss of above Rs.1,00,000/-. The station officer, Fire and Rescue Station, Sasthamcottah has assessed the loss incurred at Rs.5,00,000/- that is at Rs.4,00,000/- for the destruction of the building and Rs.1,00,000/- for the loss of articles. Hence complainant approached the Forum for relief.
Opposite party 1 filed version contending that there was absolutely no leakage of LPG at the time of issuing the same and the customer was fully satisfied with its perfect condition. Normally there is no leakage from the cylinder. On getting information of the accident the concerned sales manager of the Indian Oil Corporation had visited the place of occurrence and conducted an investigation regarding the accident. After investigation it is found that the cause of accident in this case could be attributed to unawareness of LPG handling/installation by the customer/complainant. As a matter of fact the knobs of the hot plate and pressure regulator were in ‘ON’ position after the cylinder was fitted by the complainant relatives. The complainant when she came to the kitchen also did not ascertain whether the hot plate and regulator knobs were in close/on position. She switched on the electric switch in the kitchen and the leaked LPG through the opened/partially opened knob of the hot plate got fire due to the sparking of the
(3)
electric switch. Because of the fire on the outer surface of the cylinder and due to pressure built up from the burning materials, the cylinder along with gas exploded. It was found at the time of investigation that the right knob of the hot plate has been completely burned. After replacing the refill the knob of the pressure regulator was kept opened. The leaked LPG got settled in the Kitchen immediately caught fire when light was switched on. Hence it is crystal clear that the accident took place solely due to the negligence and ignorance of the complainant and her family member. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party. This opposite party had availed insurance policy of the M/s National Insurance Company .Ltd, Mumbai Branch for the benefit of customers vide policy No.251100/46/11/9500000136. As per the terns of the policy issued by insurance company, they are liable to compensate the 1st opposite party for all causes arising out of the accident. So if this Hon’ble Forum is inclined to grant any amount to the complainant as compensation (not admitted), M/s National Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai Branch alone is liable to pay the same.
Opposite party 2 filed version and admitted that complainant is the customer of the opposite party vide customer number 26417 dated 16/06/2011 and on 25/04/2012 and LPG filled cylinder was issued by the opposite party. Opposite party contented that complainant is the customer of this opposite party vide customer No.26417 dated 16/06/2011. On 25/04/2012 an LPG filled cylinder was issued by this opposite party. There was absolutely no leakage of LPG at the time of issuing the same and the customer was fully satisfied with its perfect condition. Normally there is no leakage from the cylinder. On getting information of the accident the concerned sales manager of the Indian Oil Corporation had visited the place of occurrence and conducted an investigation regarding the accident. The said investigation was conducted by the oil company in the normal course of its activities and it is the usual practice when ever such accidents take place. Due to the accident the complainant did not sustain any serious damage or loss as per the investigation conducted by the officials of the 1st opposite party. There is no cause of action for the complainant against the opposite party. The cause of action was not shown in the complaint. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party.
Additional 3rd opposite party filed version contending that it is admitted that this opposite party had issued a public liability policy in the name of 1st opposite party M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, for a period commencing from 02/05/2011 to 01/05/2012, covering the risk of the property damage sustained at authorized customers registered premises subject to the terms and conditions contained in the policy. As per the coverage given under the policy, the liability
(4)
of the company towards property damage sustained to an authorized customer of the insured at the registered customer’s premises is limited to the extent of maximum Rs.1,00,000/- per event as per the insurance policy issued by this opposite party. The admission of insurance coverage to the limited liability of Rs.1,00,000/- is not an admission of liability in this case due to the serious violation of policy condition committed by the 1st opposite party in this case. The insured not give immediate notice to the company in writing to the nearest office of the company with a copy to the policy issuing office in respect of any claim under the policy. The insured has failed to intimate the claim in writing before this opposite party and failed to give necessary assistance and information about the claim to this opposite party so as to enable this opposite party to evaluate the admissibility of the claim and to assess the extent of loss sustained and to proceed the claim after complying the necessary formalities. It is submitted that the claim made by the complainant is not supported with any authentic proof or documents. There is no report by any competent authority assessing the extent of loss sustained to the complainant and the alleged cause of incident in the alleged incident etc. The complainant has not assessed the actual loss sustained to her either through a competent and licensed loss assessor or through any statutory recognized authorities. The entire claim made in the complaint is not supported with any documentary evidence and only on mere surmises. The complainant is trying to make a fortune out of a misfortune by making an exaggerated claim which is lacking legal and factual bearings. The loss claimed by the complainant under various heads is false and baseless without any supporting evidence.
The complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation from this opposite party and this opposite party is not liable to indemnify the insured in this case due to the violation of policy condition committed by the insured. The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed as against this opposite party with compensatory cost.
Additional opposite party 4 filed version contending that as per the coverage given under the policy the liability of the company towards property damage sustained to an authorized customer of the insured at the registered customer’s premises is limited to the extent of maximum Rs.25,000/- per event as per the insurance policy issued by the opposite party. However the admission of insurance coverage to the limited liability of Rs.25,000/- is not an admission of liability in this case due to the serious violation of policy conditions committed by the 1st opposite party in this case. The insured not give immediate notice to the company in writing to the nearest office of the company with a copy to the policy issuing office in respect of
(5)
any claim under the policy. The loss claimed by the complainant under various heads is false and baseless without any supporting evidence. Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation from this opposite party and this opposite party is not liable to indemnify the insured in this case due to the violation of policy condition committed by the insured . The complaint is therefore liable to be dismiss as against this opposite party with compensatory cost.
The points that would arise for consideration are:-
(1).Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
(2). Reliefs and costs?
The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PWs 1 , 2 and DW1 and documentary evidence Exts P1 to P5 (series) and D1 to D4.
The Points:- It is the admitted case of the parties that the complainant had obtained domestic cooking gas connection from the 1st opposite party through the 2nd opposite party. On 25/04/2012 opposite parties served to the complainant a filled gas cylinder at about 4 P.M . The said filled gas cylinder was brought to and kept in the complainant’s kitchen by the brother of the complainant. After keeping the said cylinder in the kitchen, the complainant switched on the electric light in the kitchen, but all on a sudden the cylinder caught fire and fire began to pass up from the cap of the cylinder. And cylinder exploited with a huge sound and fire spread over the entire portion of the kitchen and other part of the house and the chimney was exploded. Said fire and explosion, roof, wall, chimney ventilator door of the kitchen , the furniture and utensils and broken and burnt and sustained damages to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs. Her specific case is that the leakage of gas from the gas cylinder was due to the manufacturing defect and she is entitled to the claim.
Opposite party 1, Senior Manager, IOC Ltd Area office Panampally Nagar, Cochin filed version G.Anandavally , Proprietor, Keerthi Indane Service, Ambadi shopping complex, Mynagappally Kollam filed version admitting that complainant is the costumer of the opposite party vide customer number 26417 dated 16/06/2011 and on 25/04/2012 an LPG filled cylinder was issued and it was entrusted to the complainant herself after full check up for everything including gas leakage. On getting information of the accident the concerned sales manager of the IOC had visited the place of occurrence and conducted an investigation regarding the accident. Complainant is to substantiate that the accident occurred due to the leakage or damage by the manufacturing defect.
(6)
Additional opposite party 3 admitted that, they had issued a public liability policy in the name of 1st opposite for a period commencing from 02/05/2011 to 01/05/2012 covering the risk of the property damage sustained at authorized customers. But opposite party 3’s liability is limited to the extent of Rs.1 lakh only.
Complainant as PW1 would swear before the Forum in tune with the allegations in the complaint. Nothing was brought out in cross examination to discredit the witness. It is true that in the complaint she has a case that she is an Indane gas customer of 1st opposite party and the gas cylinder which was exploded while she switched on the electric light in the Kitchen, cylinder caught fire and fire began to spread over the kitchen and damaged house and house hold articles. There is no dispute regarding the explosion of gas cylinder and damages.
Though opposite parties 1 and 2 have a case that the cylinder was delivered after pre-check – up and there was no leakage or damage , DW1 would swear before the Forum that “hmZn-bpsS hoSv road side  Aà hn t]mIp-¶-Xp-hsc sImp sImSp¡pw check sN¿p-t¶m F¶v tNmZn¡pw. Check sN¿Ww F¶v ]d-bp-¶-hÀ¡v check sNbvXp sImSp¡pw. From the above discussion we are not sure that opposite parties was properly tested and ensured leak proof delivery at the complainants place. Then the explosion is only due to the manufacturing defect ie due to leakage or damage of the cylinder.
Coming to the question of quantum. According to PW1due to explosion she has lost home appliance, kitchen, chimminy , furniture, chimminy door, gas strore and other rooms etc.As per Ext.P3 FIR prepared by Karunagappally police, 25/04/2012 sshIn«v 4 aWn-tbm-Sp-IqSn ]pXnb Kymkv knen-À sImp-h¶v ASp-¡-f-bn h¨n«v kzn-¨n« kabw F§-s\tbm kv]mÀ¡p-mbn Xo ]nSn-¨v, Kymkv knen-À s]m«n-sX-dn¨v hoSn\pw, ho«p- D-]-I-c-W-§Ä¡pw tISp-]m-Sp-IÄ kw`-hn-¨-Xn h¨v Bh-em-Xn-¡m-csâ ktlm-Zcn dwem-_o-hnbv¡v 5 e£w cq]-bpsS \jvSw kw`-hn-¡m-\n-S-bm¡n F¶p-ÅXv. As per Ext.P.4 fire report, prepared by station officer, Fire and Rescue Station, Sasthamcottah 650 N. ASn-bn-epw joäp taª hoSv `mKn-I-ambpw hoSn-t\mSv tNÀ¶pÅ ASp-¡f (10×12) ASn- Nn½n\n DÄs¸sS ]qÀ®-ambpw Kymkv knen--dn\p Xo ]nSn¨p s]m«n-sX-dn¨p. hoSv `mKn-I-ambpw ASp-¡-f, Nn½n\n DÄs¸sS ]qÀ®-ambpw Xo ]nSn¨p s]m«n-sX-dn¨p.. sI«n-S-§-fpsS \mi \jvSw Dt±iw 4,00,000/þ cq]bpw AIs¯ km[-\-§-fpsS \mi \jvS-§Ä Dt±iw 1 e£w cq]-bpw BWv. Ext.P5 series photographs also points out the grave extent of
(7)
explosion. Complainant side produced photographs and examined as PW2 would swear before the Forum that Rm³ Cu tIkn DÄs¸« A]-I-S-¯nsâ photo FSp¯ hy-àn-bmWv. 25/04/2012 \v Dt±iw 4.30 aWn-tbm-Sp-Iq-Sn-bmWv A]-I-S-Ø-e¯v sN¶Xv. Ct¸mÄ Fs¶ ImWn¨ 7 Photograph IÄ Rm³ A]-IS Øe¯p \n¶pw FSp¯ Photograph BWv.
On examination of documents produced, facts and circumstances, we are on the opinion that complainant proved her case and found that there is gross negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and complainant is entitled to get relief.
So taking the available evidence as a whole we are of the view that payment of Rs.2.75 lakhs is sufficient for the ends of justice out of which Rs.1 lakh will be paid by the additional opposite party 3 and remaining 1.5 lakhs by opposite party 1 and Rs.25000/- by additional opposite party 4 to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing additional opposite party 3 to pay Rs.1 lakh and opposite party 4 to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.1.5 lakhs as compensation to the complainant. Opposite parties 2 to 4 are directed to pay Rs.5000/- as cost to the proceedings to the complainant. This order is to be complied with within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order. Non compliance of this order the amount will carry 9% interest.
Dated this the 20th day of June 2016.
G.VASANTHAKUMARI:Sd/-
ADV.RAVISUSHA:Sd/-
ADV.M.PRAVEENKUMAR: Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
I N D E X
PW.1:-Ramla Beevi
PW.2:-Suresh
DW.1:-Manoj.P
Ext.P.1:- Copy of gas consumer card
Ext.P.2:-Copy of gas connection document
Ext.P.3:-FIR
(8)
Ext.P.4:-Fire station report
Ext.P.5:-Photographs
Ext.D.1:-Authorization
Ext.D.2:-Photos with CD
Ext.D.3:-Copy of policy
Ext.D.4:- Policy and policy conditions
