Delhi District Court
Saroj Bala vs . Raju Gas Service & Others. on 30 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRASHANT KUMAR,
ADJ04 (NW), ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI.
CS No. 591/14
Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
1. Saroj Bala
W/o Sh. Rajender Singh,
218, Singhu Village,
Narela, Delhi110040
2. Deepak (Minor)
S/o Sh. Rajender Singh.
3. Suraj (Minor)
S/o Sh. Rajender Singh.
All R/o 218, Singhu Village,
Narela, Delhi110040.
(Plaintiffs No. 2 & 3 are minors suing through plaintiff no. 1 who is their mother,
natural guardian and next friend for the suit)
.............Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Raju Gas Service,
U190, Vijay Nagar,
Railway Road, Narela,
Delhi110040.
2. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
67th Floor, North Tower,
Scope Minar, District Centre,
Luxmi Nagar, Delhi110092.
3. National Insurance Company Limited.
7th Floor, Hemkunt House,
Rajender Place, New Delhi110008.
4. United India Insurance Company Limited
133, Jahangir Building, 1st Floor,
M. G. Road, Port, Mumbai .......Defendants
CS No.591/14 Page No. 1/42
Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
Date of Institution of the case : 04.09.2009
Date of hearing the arguments : 05.07.2014
Date of announcing the Judgment : 30.07.2014
J U D G M E N T
1. By this order, I shall pronounce the final Judgment in this case.
2. The facts of the case filed by the plaintiffs in brief are as under:
Plaintiff has filed a suit for damages alleging that all the plaintiffs are residing in Delhi. Plaintiff no. 1 is the mother of plaintiff no. 2 & 3 who are minor. Defendant no. 1 is a firm engaged as distributor of LPG Gas Cylinders used for the purpose of domestic fuel. Defendant no. 2 is the company who manufactures, fills, prepares the LPG Gas Cylinder which are ultimately delivered to consumers through distribution agents which in the present case is defendant no. 1. The gas supplied through these cylinders is used for domestic fuel for cooking. A regulator which is provided by the defendants, is fixed on top of the cylinder as interface between the cylinder and the stove. Defendant no. 1 & 2 respectively are insured with National Insurance company, defendant no. 3 and United India Insurance Company ltd. These insurance companies are liable to the damages by virtue of the contracts of insurance with defendants no. 1 & 2. Mr. Rajinder Singh i.e. the husband of plaintiff no. 1 is the registered consumer with the defendants for the purpose of LPG Gas Cylinders and defendants CS No.591/14 Page No. 2/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
have been supplying, against consideration, refill gas cylinders to the household of the plaintiff which have been used by them for the purpose of domestic fuel for cooking. On 12.03.2008, plaintiff received from defendant no. 1, one such refill cylinder of gas through delivery man of defendant no. 1. The cylinder was installed by the delivery man of defendant no. 1 by affixing regulator on top of the cylinder. After installation, the plaintiff no. 1 locked the knob of the cylinder as prescribed for the consumers. At night at about 10.00 pm, on same day plaintiff no. 1 proceeded to light the stove for cooking meal for her family. As soon as she lighted the stove with the gas lighter, the fire suddenly erupted around the regulator and around the rubber pipe used for carrying gas from the cylinder to the stove. The gas immediately escaped into the entire room and spread around. In all five persons were present at that time. In addition to plaintiffs Mr. Rajinder Singh i.e. husband of plaintiff no. 1 was also present alongwith his brother Roshan Lal. The fire immediately engulfed all five occupants of the room and everyone was inflamed having caught fire. Plaintiff no. 1 received maximum exposure and was encircled all around with flames. The neighbours of the plaintiff came rushing on hearing of the cries for help. They immediately took steps to put of the fire by chocking the flames and throwing water. The neighbours managed vehicle and all the persons were taken to Satyavadi Raja CS No.591/14 Page No. 3/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
Harish Chander Hospital, Narela. Someone had called the PCR and police came to the spot and to the hospital for inquiry. Plaintiff had received severe burn injuries. Condition of plaintiff no. 1 was serious and she was referred to LNJP Hospital. MLC was drawn in respect of all the plaintiffs and they remained in the hospital for a period of about 1215 days. Plaintiff no. 1 had burnt injuries of about 45% whereas plaintiffs no. 2 & 3 had burnt injuries of 10% each. All the plaintiffs had suffered physical pain, disfiguration and confinement but plaintiff no. 1 was most brutally hurt. Plaintiff no. 1 received burnt injuries on face and in legs. She was ridden with scars on the face and serious injuries on the legs. She was in LNJP Hospital in first instance from 13.03.2008 until 24.03.2008. She was again admitted to SRHCH Hospital on 07.04.2008 and remained under treatment until 22.05.2008. She remained on the continue treatment as outdoor patient until much after. When her condition did not improve she had to undergo one surgical operation at D.L. Sharma Hospital at Sonepat for which purpose she remained hospitalized between 17.12.2008 to 16.01.2009. Despite all the treatment, the plaintiff no. 1 had suffered physical disability and is not able to work. The accident in question was caused by failure of the defendants to provide safe and reliable gas cylinder/ regulators to the plaintiff. The cylinder and the regulator were faulty, resulting in the gas leaking and catching fire. The CS No.591/14 Page No. 4/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
defendants were under legal duty to provide safe and secure equipments to the plaintiffs in which duty the defendants miserably failed. The accident took place singularly due to faulty equipment provided by the defendants. The information of accident was given to the defendants and was also reflected in the media. Defendants had deputed their representative to carry out examination of the plaintiffs and as a matter of precaution informed their insurance company about the potential claim for the plaintiff, however, they had not make any positive gestures towards payment of any compensation. Hence, this suit has been filed.
3. In his WS filed by the defendant no. 1, it has been stated that the plaintiffs have not stated the correct facts. Plaintiff had not given any statement in respect of her cause of injuries with police officials or any doctor or any other authority established under the law and have not lodged any complaint, grievances, disputes against the answering defendants to any statutory body for redressal of her grievances. The suit filed by her is false and fabricated which sole malafide intention to extort money. Rajinder Singh was the registered consumer of the defendant and was availing the services since long and there was no problem and danger whatsoever which implies that defendant no. 1 had rendered the services of best quality and standard to its CS No.591/14 Page No. 5/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
consumer as well as to the husband of plaintiff no. 1. Husband of plaintiff did not make any kind of complaint about the leakage of gas cylinder/ regulator nor there was any complaint of deficiency of service on the part of defendant no. 1, from the side of husband of plaintiff no. 1. Refilling of gas cylinder was done as per the order and thus gas cylinder was delivered to the husband of plaintiff no. 1 at his address on 06.02.2008. it is well established practice that only after satisfaction of the customers in respect of the gas cylinders, the customer gives the acknowledgement to the delivery man in respect of delivery/ supplying of refilling of gas cylinder. He was continuous in use of the cylinder during the period of 06.02.2008 to 12.03.2008. the LPG Gas cylinder was working properly since it was delivered and hence, no alleged accident took place due to leakage of gas cylinder/ regulator as alleged. The cause of accident may be matrimonial dispute or family dispute or tension between the family members of may be due to other reasons best known to the plaintiff. Therefore, the matter was not reported to the police or any other authority by the plaintiff or any of her relative or neighbour. Defendant no. 1 was duly covered with National Insurance Company and the liability if any is that of defendant no. 3.
In his WS, defendant no. 2 has stated that suit has not been filed by the plaintiff appropriately as the natural guardian of the minor CS No.591/14 Page No. 6/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
children is their father, however, it has been filed by their mother. Defendant no. 2 is covered by comprehensive insurances which protect it against claim for accidents with United India Insurance Company Limited, therefore, if there is any liability rested upon defendant no. 2 then it is to be paid only by the said insurance company. The United India Insurance Company has not been made a party. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Rajender Singh is the registered consumer of defendant no. 1 who has been regularly buying gas from him. The gas cylinder was lastly delivered on 06.02.2008 and not on 12.03.2008. Delivery boy fixed the regulator on the top of the cylinder as a normal procedure. Accident had taken place on 12.03.2008 at 10.00 pm which could be only due to the rash and negligent act of the plaintiff. She must have forgotten to close the gas knob and some gas could have escaped and burst into a ball when she had lit the gas stove. The plaintiff had suffered the alleged injuries for which she must be asked to furnish strict proof thereof. She must have been compensated by the United India Insurance Company. Defendant have required to furnish all the proof of the expenses incurred by her. No reply has been furnished however. Defendant has denied that accident was caused by the failure of defendant to provide safe and reliable gas cylinder/ regulator to the plaintiff. The regulator was working for last about nine years which CS No.591/14 Page No. 7/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
reflects that it was in working order. There is no damage to the property. Defendant being a public sector undertaking immediately informed to the insurance company about this incident. Neither the insurance company nor this court can award compensation for the alleged damages without the proof of actual damages.
In his WS, defendant no. 3 i.e. National Insurance Company Limited has stated that the extent of the insurance policy as per the policy for the period 18.04.2007 to 17.04.2008 are in the name of M/s Raju gas Service who is defendant no. 1 and the public liability of defendant no. 3 under the policy is limited maximum upto Rs. 10 Lacs for the whole policy period. As per policy, the public liability is covered at the time when gas connection or cylinder is being installed by the insured under his employees. Therefore, defendant no. 3 is not liable to pay any amount.
In his WS, defendant no. 4 has stated that there is no privity of contract in between defendant no. 4 and plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff has not locus standi to file the present suit. The cylinder was supplied on 06.02.2008 against the booking of 04.02.2008. The cylinder booked on 10.03.2008 was not supplied. When HPCL Official and Pramod Kumar of M/s Raju Gas Service went to the residence of Rajender Singh for inspection of site in connection with flame burns rodes by him and his family due to gas leakage on 12.03.2008, the existing CS No.591/14 Page No. 8/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
cylinder was found having 1½ kg gas. The accident is solely due to the negligence of plaintiff. The cylinder was supplied on 06.02.2008. Defendant no. 2 had made inspection of the premises of the plaintiff and found that regulator condition was not sound, its seal on the top was tempered and it appears that some repair was done earlier. The rubber tube looked to be very old and its end was recently cut and refixed on the regulator. All these facts prima facie establishes that plaintiff themselves were negligent. Hence, they are not entitled for any claim.
The liability of defendant no. 4 is subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy which was valid for the period from 22.04.2007 to 21.04.2008 in favour of defendant no. 2. defendant no. 4 had requested to defendant no. 2 to furnish required information to process the claim but defendant no. 2 had failed to do so. Hence, defendant no. 4 can not be held liable to pay any compensation.
4. After the pleadings were complete, following issues were framed vide order dated 07.12.2010.
(i) Whether the suit is not maintainable as per Order 32 Rule 1 & 2 CPC as alleged in preliminary objection no. 'B' in WS of the defendant no. 2? OPD2.
(ii) Whether any liability in the suit of the defendant no. 2 is to be paid by insurance company/ defendant no. 4 as alleged in preliminary objection 'C' in WS of the defendant no. 2? OPD2.
CS No.591/14 Page No. 9/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
(iii) Whether the suit is not maintainable against the defendant no. 4 in view of preliminary objection no. 1 in WS of defendant no. 4? OPD4.
(iv) Whether the suit is not maintainable against defendant no. 4 in view of preliminary objection no. 3 in WS of defendant no. 4? OPD4.
(v) Whether the plaintiffs themselves were negligent as alleged in preliminary objection no. 4 in WS of defendant no. 4. If so, to what effect? OPD4.
(vi) Whether the liability of defendant no. 4 is limited as alleged in preliminary objection no. 5 in WS of defendant no. 4? OPD4.
(vii) Whether the suit is barred by time as alleged in preliminary objection no. 8 in WS of defendant no. 4? OPD4.
(viii) To what amount, if any, as compensation are the plaintiffs entitled from the defendants? OPP.
(ix) Relief.
5. Before proceeding further, It is pertinent to mention here that plaintiff has examined six witnesses. Defendant no 2 has not led any evidence and have adopted the evidence led by defendant no.1 and defendants no. 1 and 3 have examined only one witness respectively on their behalf. There is no evidence from the side of defendant no. 4.
6. My issue wise findings are as under: Issue No. 1: Whether the suit is not maintainable as per Order 32 Rule 1 & 2 CPC as alleged in preliminary objection no. 'B' in WS of the defendant no. 2? OPD2.
Onus of this issue is upon defendant no. 2. Nothing much light has been thrown by and on behalf of defendant no. 2 in this regard CS No.591/14 Page No. 10/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
during final arguments. Objection taken by the defendant no. 2 is that plaintiff no. 2 & 3 are minor and the plaintiff no. 1 can not be considered as natural guardian of plaintiff no. 2 & 3 when their father is alive. It has been further stated that plaintiff no. 2 & 3 should have been represented only by a next friend. Arguments are heard at length. During arguments, it has been stated on behalf of the plaintiff that after this alleged incident, husband of plaintiff no. 1 has left her and did not come forward in filing of this case, due to that the suit was filed on behalf of the mother of plaintiffs no. 2 & 3. Defendants have not objected to this arguments put forth by and on behalf of the plaintiffs. It is reflected from perusal of the record that father of plaintiff no. 2 & 3 was not examined as one of the witness. This fact has further strengthen the arguments put forth by the plaintiffs. It is further pertinent to mention here that the court should not be hypertechnical in granting the relief in favour of either of the parties and the case should be decided on the basis of the merits instead of mere technicalities. In these circumstances, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the suit has been filed by and on behalf of the plaintiff no. 1 being the mother of plaintiff no. 2 & 3. Hence, this issue is decided against the defendants.
Issue No. 7:Whether the suit is barred by time as alleged in preliminary objection no. 8 in WS of defendant no. 4? OPD4. CS No.591/14 Page No. 11/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
Onus of this issue is upon defendant no. 4. Not much light has been thrown during final arguments in this regard by the defendants. The record is perused thoroughly. The alleged incident is dated 12.03.2008. The suit for recovery of damages has been filed on 05.09.2009 i.e. within one and half year of the alleged incident. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is well within the limitation. This issue no. is decided accordingly.
7. Issues no. 2, 3, 4 , 5, 6 & 8 are interrelated. Therefore, they are being decided jointly.
Issue no. 2: Whether any liability in the suit of the defendant no. 2 is to be paid by insurance company/ defendant no. 4 as alleged in preliminary objection 'C' in WS of the defendant no. 2? OPD2. Issue No. 3: Whether the suit is not maintainable against the defendant no. 4 in view of preliminary objection no. 1 in WS of defendant no. 4? OPD4.
Issue no. 4: Whether the suit is not maintainable against defendant no. 4 in view of preliminary objection no. 3 in WS of defendant no. 4? OPD4.
Issue no. 5: Whether the plaintiffs themselves were negligent as alleged in preliminary objection no. 4 in WS of defendant no. 4. If so, to what effect? OPD4.
Issue no. 6: Whether the liability of defendant no. 4 is limited as alleged in preliminary objection no. 5 in WS of defendant no. 4? OPD4.
Issue no. 8: To what amount, if any, as compensation are the plaintiffs entitled from the defendants? OPP.
It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff Saroj Bala has examined herself as PW1 and has stated that she has filed a suit on CS No.591/14 Page No. 12/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
behalf of all other plaintiff who are minor and members of the family the copy of ration card is EX. PW 1/1. It is stated that defendant no. 1 is the distributor of LPG gas cylinder and defendant no 2 is the manufacture of LPG gas cylinders. The gas is supplied for domestic use for cooking. A regulator is also provided by defendants which is fixed on the top of the cylinder as interface between the cylinder and the stove. It is stated by PW1 that her husband Rajinder singh is the registered consumer with defendant. Plaintiff has been getting refilled cylinders from the defendants from time to time on regular basis. The original delivery voucher and subscription voucher are Ex.as PW1/2 and 1/3 respectively. It is stated that on 12.03.2008 plaintiff received a refilled cylinder of gas through delivery man of defendant no. 1 which was starved by him by affixing regulator on top of the cylinder. After installation plaintiff locked the knob of the cylinder. At about 10 pm on the same day when plaintiff proceeded to light the stove for cooking meal for her family and as soon as it was lighted with gas lighter, the fire suddenly erupted the regulator and rubber pipe. The gas immediately escaped into the entire room and spread around in all five persons were present in the house at that time. The fire immediately engulfed all five occupants of the room plaintiff being most proximate to gas stove received maximum exposure and was encircled around with flames. Neighbours came rushing upon hearing CS No.591/14 Page No. 13/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
cries for help and took steps to put of the fire by chocking the flames and throwing water. Injured were taken to Satyawadi Raja Harish Chander Hospital, Narela by neighbours the police was called who came on the spot went to the hospital for making enquiry. Plaintiff received severe burn injuries. Her condition was serious and therefore, she was referred to LNJP Hospital. MLC was drawn in respect of all the victims. They were given treatment and remained in hospital for varying periods. Plaintiffs stayed in hospital from 13.03.2008 to 24.03.2008. Suraj and Deepak son of plaintiff, were in hospital from 13.03.2008 to 26.03.2008. Plaintiff has filed the discharge card from the hospital with regard to her son Deepak and Suraj which are Ex. PW1/4, PW1/5 & PW1/6. Copy of discharge slip from LNJP Hospital is mark A. plaintiff has stated that she received burnt injuries at the spot, about 45% whereas plaintiff no. 2 & 3 received burnt injuries assessed as 10% each. It has resulted into physical pain, disfiguration, confinement which is grievous in nature. The injuries were widespread and debilitating. Plaintiff has received burn injuries on face and legs and is ridden with scars on face and serious injuries on the legs. Plaintiff was admitted in LNJP Hospital in the first instance from 13.03.2008 to 24.03.2008. She was again admitted in SRHC Hospital on 07.04.2008 and remained under treatment until 22.05.2008. plaintiff further remained on continue CS No.591/14 Page No. 14/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
treatment as outdoor patient until much after and when her condition did not improve, she had to undergo one surgical operation at DN Sharma Hospital, Sonepat for which she remained hospitalized in between 17.12.2008 to 16.01.2009. All the documents regarding medical treatment are Ex. PW1/7 (colly). It is further stated by the plaintiff that accident was caused by the failure of defendant to provide safe and reliable gas cylinders/ regulators to the plaintiffs. The cylinder and regulators were faulty resulting in gas leaking and catching fire. Defendants were under legal duty to provide safe and secure equipments in which they have miserably failed. The plaintiff has been seeking the damages/ compensation of Rs. 10 Lacs details of which are mentioned in para no. 12 of her evidence by way of affidavit. It is further stated that the defendants had information of the accident. It also appeared in Newspaper and was part of common public knowledge. Defendants had deputed their representative to carry out examination of the plaintiff, however, they did not make any positive gestures towards payment of any compensation. The liability of defendants are joint and several.
In her cross examination, PW1 has stated that she has not placed on record any document to show that delivery of gas cylinder was made on 12.03.2008. In this regard, it is stated that the delivery man had not given any paper. The suggestion regarding delivery of CS No.591/14 Page No. 15/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
cylinder on 06.02.2008 has been declined. Plaintiff has further stated that she has not sensitivity to smell, hence, it was not possible for her to detect the leakage of gas. The plaintiff, however, has stated further that she does not have any documents or bills for Rs. 3 Lacs claimed by her. During cross examination, plaintiff furnished the disability certificate reflecting that she had suffered 52% disability, which is Ex. PW1/D1. Plaintiff, however, has not furnished any salary certificate to show that she was earning Rs. 5000/ per month.
Apart from this, nothing else has been asked from the side of the defendants and more particularly by defendants no. 1 & 2 against whom the case has been filed alleging that it was their primary duty to provide safe cylinder and instrument. No question nor any suggestion with regard to the defendant no. 1 & 2 not having any liability towards the plaintiff nor any question or suggestion with regard to the cylinder/ regulator so supplied to plaintiff being defective have been asked by the defendants. In these circumstance, the relevancy of the evidence led by the plaintiff/ PW1 has to be considered accordingly in the light of the nature of liability in such case where there is a supply of the goods/ commodity which is considered as an essential commodity as well but is very dangerous and explosive in nature like LPG Gas which is supplied by defendants no. 1 & 2 in the form of gas cylinders for which defendant no. 1 is supplying agent, defendant no. 2 is the CS No.591/14 Page No. 16/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
manufacturer and defendants no. 3 & 4 are the insurance companies respectively.
PW2 is a witness from LNJP Hospital who is a record clerk and brought the summoned record pertaining to the treatment of plaintiff Saroj Bala at LNJP Hospital. All the documents, copies of which is Ex. PW2/1 (Colly), were identified by him as part of their record and correct.
PW3 is Satbir Singh Dahiya, statical assistant, MRD Branch, Satyavadi Raja Harish Chander Hospital who also brought the summoned record of the treatment of plaintiff at SRHC Hospital and stated that all these documents which are Ex. PW3/1 (Colly) are correct and part of their record. Similar was his reply with regard to the record pertaining to the treatment of Master Suraj and Deepak which is Ex. PW3/2 (Colly) and PW3/3 (Colly) respectively.
PW4 is a witness who appeared on behalf of DN Hospital, Sonepat, Haryana. He produced his authority letter which is Ex. PW4/1 and stated that he was not able to produce any document as a fire had taken place in their hospital on 27.04.2011 and all the record pertaining to this case alongwith other record was burned.
PW5 is the Head Constable who has deposed regarding DD Entry no. 20, dated 12.03.2008 which is Ex. PW5/1 which is pertaining to the call made on that day.
CS No.591/14 Page No. 17/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
PW6 is the Dr. Sameer Mehta, Ortho Surgeon, BJRM Hospital who deposed pertaining to the issuance of disability certificate dated 14.09.2010 to Saroj Bala which is Ex. PW1/D1. PW6 was the member of medical board who issued this certificate and he had given findings that plaintiff Saroj Bala was having 52% permanent disability pertaining to her both lower limbs. No material contradiction has emerged from cross examination of this witness.
8. Now coming to the evidence led on behalf of the defendants.
Sh. R. S. Dagar, proprietor of Raju Gas Services examined himself as D1W1 on behalf of defendant no. 1 alleging that he is not the manufacturer of gas cylinder nor involved in filling of gas cylinder, hence, he is not liable. It is stated by him that plaintiff had not given any statement in respect of her cause of injuries with police officials or any doctor or any authority. The alleged accident occurred on 12.03.2008. plaintiff had not lodged any complaint, grievances, disputes before defendant no. 1 or any statutory body for redressal of her grievances. Plaintiff had filed a false and fabricated case with a sole malafide intention to extort money from the defendants. It is further stated that plaintiff herself has alleged that her husband had also sustained burn injuries but she has not filed any claim for compensation alongwith her. It is stated that Rajender Singh was the CS No.591/14 Page No. 18/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
registered consumer of defendant no. 1 who was availing the services since long and there was no problem and danger whatsoever which clearly proves that defendant no. 1 has rendered the service of best quality to its customers including husband of plaintiff no. 1. Husband of plaintiff did not make any kind of complaint about the leakage of gas cylinder/ regulator nor there was any complaint of deficiency in service on the part of defendant no. 1 from the side of husband of plaintiff no. 1. The cylinder in question was delivered on 06.02.2008 which was to the satisfaction of the customer and it is a common practice that only after satisfaction, the customer gives the acknowledgement to the delivery man. It is further stated that the LPG Gas Cylinder was continuous in use during the period from 06.02.2008 to 12.03.2008, hence, the alleged incident did not took place due to leakage of gas cylinder/ regulator. The cause of accident may be matrimonial dispute or family dispute or tension between the family members or may be some other reasons which was not reported to the police or any other authority.
During his cross examination, D1W1 has stated that he does not know the meaning of cause of action and therefore, did not explain anything as to whether any cause of action was arising in favour of plaintiff or not. D1W1 further stated that no case is made out against him as his work is of distribution of gas cylinder. It is further CS No.591/14 Page No. 19/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
stated by D1W1 that when he visited the spot on next day, he found that there was no leakage in the gas cylinder and there was no loss due to any defect in the gas cylinder, or gas pipe or regulator. There were lying, burn clothes and furniture. D1W1, however, did not take any photographs. He went out to meet the injured in the hospital and saw that plaintiff was having burn injuries. During his cross examination, D1W1 has further stated that he do not check the cylinder personally before delivery as it is the job of his employee/ godown keeper. It is further stated by D1W1 that he was not having any slip to show the delivery of cylinder to the plaintiff as the record stands destroyed. D1W1 further explained that as a matter of practice, the manual record was to be destroyed after six months and only computerized record were kept. The cylinder was delivered on 06.02.2008 and no cylinder was delivered thereafter. During his cross examination D1W1 filed one document showing that the cylinder was delivered on 06.02.2008 which was allowed to be taken on record and this document is Ex. D1W1/1.
From the cross examination of D1W1, it is reflected that he was not able to give any reasonable explanation regarding non furnishing of counter foil of supplying of cylinder lastly to the plaintiff. He himself had stated that they normally keep the record for about six months. The date of incident is 12.03.2008. D1W1 had stated that cylinder CS No.591/14 Page No. 20/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
was supplied on 06.02.2008. Thus, only one month had passed and as this unfortunate incident had taken place and a police call was also made in that regard, therefore, defendant no. 1 was having all the time to check the record and preserve the same. Thus, the explanation given by him in this regard is not satisfactory.
It has been already stated above that defendant no. 2 i.e. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. has not led any evidence and has adopted the evidence led by defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 3, National Insurance Company Ltd. has examined R. K. Alahbadi as their witness who has stated that the cause of alleged accident was not the leakage of gas cylinder/ regulator. The cause of accident may be matrimonial dispute or family dispute or tension in between the family members or some other reasons best known to them. Therefore, the matter was not reported to police or any other authority by the plaintiff. It is further stated on behalf of defendant no. 3 by D3W1 that as per the terms and conditions of Insurance police, the public liability is covered only at the time when the gas connection or cylinder is being installed by the insured under his employee. The refilling of the gas cylinder was done at the instance of authorized customer and it was delivered at the address of husband of plaintiff on 06.02.2008, that too subject to the satisfaction of the customer for which customer gives the acknowledgement to the delivery man. The CS No.591/14 Page No. 21/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
LPG Gas cylinder was continuous in use during the period from 06.02.2008 to 12.03.2008. The cylinder was working properly since it was delivered till 12.03.2008. Thus, no such alleged incident took place due to leakage of gas cylinder/ regulator as alleged. It is further stated that risk due to manufacturing defect, if any, to the cylinder and due to wear and tear of gas cylinder, regulator and supply pipe is not covered under the policy. It is further stated that there is nothing on record to suggest that this incident is covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, the defendant no. 3 is not entitled to pay anything. The copy of insurance policy is Ex. D3W1/1 & D3W1/2.
During his cross examination, this witness stated that he was having the official knowledge of the incident from the insured. Nothing much contradictions have emerged from the cross examination of the witness of defendant no. 3 which is very brief in nature.
9. Now the entire thing and the liability of the defendants including defendant no. 3 has to be construed in the light of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as the law on the subject.
It has already been observed above that defendant no. 4 has not led any evidence. It is pertinent to mention here that one affidavit of Satish Sharma, Deputy Manager, Legal for United India Insurance, CS No.591/14 Page No. 22/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
defendant no. 4 herein was filed on record, though, it was not tendered in evidence, in which it is stated that defendant no. 4 had required defendant no. 2 to file relevant documents before them and a notice u/o 12 Rule 8 CPC was also given to defendant no. 2. However, defendant no. 2 failed to file and produce any such documents including original investigation report. This witness was never brought into witness box and hence was never examined. However, the facts stated by him in his evidence by way of affidavit filed on record becomes relevant in the light of the arguments advanced by and on behalf of the plaintiff that defendants deliberately withheld the relevant documents pertaining to the report of initial investigation by the police, the report of cylinder which was supposed to be filed by the manufacturer which was taken in possession by him after the alleged incident, on the basis of which certain facts could have been considered. By not filing all these documents which were very well within the possession of defendants no. 2, 3 or defendant no.4, therefore, a contrary presumption has to be taken against the defendants in this regard. By applying the rule of best evidence, it is pertinent to mention here that in such cases as the defendants are having all the machinery and mechanism available at their disposal, they should have filed all the relevant documents on record to show their bonafide if they were not liable for the plaintiff. This conduct of CS No.591/14 Page No. 23/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
the defendants, therefore, is unprecedented. The defendants, more particularly, defendants no. 2, 3 & 4 are well equipped with all man and machinery and have been constituted for the benefit of the society by and large. It is needless to say that defendants have been imparting one of the most essential function which is the basic necessity of a domestic unit including the plaintiff and her family. The liability of the defendants increases further when they have been assigned to deal with supplying of such LPG which is considered as very dangerous and may cause disastrous effect if not handled properly. It is for this reason that the liability casted upon such persons including defendants in such cases is strict liability which is based upon no fault liability. In these circumstances, reference can be laid upon the following text and judgments :
The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the supplier of gas cylinder and its main employer and their respective insurance companies. The liability of all the defendants is therefore covered under Tortious liability which is based upon the alleged negligence of the defendants. Reference can also be laid upon the provisions of the Consumers Protection Act under which such services provided by defendant no. 1 being agent of defendant no. 2 are covered under definition of service as mentioned in Consumer Protection Act. In the early law, the doctrine of Caveat Emptor was CS No.591/14 Page No. 24/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
the philosophy of the Law of Sales. Today it had been replaced by "let the seller beware". As a result of this change of legal philosophy, business is heavily regulated on behalf of consuming public. Providing of gas cylinder to the consumers is considered as a service as already stated above. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act does not lays down any bar upon the jurisdiction of Civil Courts if any suit for damages on the basis of negligence of the supplier and its insurance company is filed which is very well covered under the Law of Tort under which compensation/ damages can be sought on the basis of negligence of other. In such cases, the plea of privity of contract can not be allowed to be taken against the complainant. Such liabilities are based upon the notion that if someone is providing certain services under an obligation or upon the basis of a contract then such services should be of standard quality and if there is any deficiency of service or any loss or damage is occurred due to the nature of the service provided upon which the complainant has no control, then such service provider and his employer and insurance company, if any, are liable jointly and severally. The liability to pay damage increases manifold if the nature of service so provided requires utmost care and attention of the service provider under which the service so provided requires the expertise to handle and take care. Providing gas cylinder is one of such services covered under CS No.591/14 Page No. 25/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
such cases. In such cases like supplying of gas cylinder by defendant no. 1, the care and attention of the service provider and its employer becomes more important as cylinder is containing an inflammable gas which is LPG which is the bio product of petroleum. Therefore, the standard and quality of the gas cylinder which is the container thereof has to be perfect i.e. leak proof in all circumstances. If after supplying the gas cylinder, there is leakage of gas at any point of time then the employees and agents of the gas supplier are not there to take care and handle the situation for which it is the consumer who has to suffer the consequences thereof if the leakage and escape of gas is to a great extent and results into an accident causing damages to the consumer. In such cases like the present one, under which the defendants no. 1 & 2 are having the responsibility of supplying the LPG which is a bio product of petroleum, hence, the liability of such provider and the manufacturer of the cylinder is based upon strict liability. The notion behind covering such cases under the principle of strict liability is that in such cases the standard of care and attention is always required and expected from the service provider which is not in the hands of the consumers. The consumers in such cases are at the receiving hand and if there is any manufacturing defect of the gas cylinder or the regulator, it might result into huge losses to the consumers. The rule of strict liability owes its origin from the case of CS No.591/14 Page No. 26/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
Rylands Vs. Fletcher, (1868) LR 3 HL330, which is a landmark judgment on this subject. In this case, Blackburn J. said, " we think that the true rule of law is that the person who, for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps their anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril and he does not do so is prima facie answerable to all the damage which is the natural consequences of its escape."
During the passage of time, this principle of strict liability has expended manifoldly and have included within its fold various acts and services. Supplying of gas cylinders and regulators thereof is covered under such services. Now, in the present case, the liability of the defendants no. 1 & 2 depends upon their negligence, if shown by the plaintiff as per the law. It is pertinent to mention here that in such cases of "strict liability" the standard of considering the negligence is slightly different from the general rule of considering the negligence in other Torts. In the cases of strict liability, like the present one, the test of negligence in order to establish the guilt of the defendants no. 1 & 2 is that of utmost care and attention.
The plaintiff therefore, has to establish the following things:
(i) plaintiff & her husband were the consumer of defendant no. 1.
(ii) There was no mishandling done by the plaintiffs and the leakage of gas had taken place, either due to defective regulator or due to CS No.591/14 Page No. 27/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
defective cylinder.
(iii) plaintiff themselves had not tried to repair or correct the said defect by themselves.
It has been stated by the defendants no. 1 & 2 that the cylinder in question was supplied on 06.02.2008 whereas plaintiff had stated that it was supplied on 12.03.2008. The plaintiff has not placed on record any documentary proof in this regard. By not furnishing any such record on her part can be considered as reasonable as it was very much probable on her part not to produce any documentary proof in respect thereof as on the fateful day of the alleged incident whether it was 06.02.2008 or 12.03.2008, fire had broke down in her house resulting into injuries on her body and her children. Defendant no. 1 also, on the other hand, had not provided any proof after 06.02.2008 alleging initially that no such record was available with them and later on they went on to say by placing on record certain computer generated documents that as per their record the last cylinder supplied to the plaintiff was on 06.02.2008. Defendant no. 1, on the other hand, has stated that they do keep the record of supplying the cylinders/ regulators to the consumers for about six months and they keep the record further only in certain special circumstances. What could be any other special circumstances besides the present incident which had resulted into damages by fire CS No.591/14 Page No. 28/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
to the person and property of plaintiff. In these circumstances, therefore, there are contradictions in the evidence of defendant no. 1 himself. Hence, it can not be considered to certainty that the cylinder lastly supplied to the plaintiff was on 06.02.2008. Even if the submissions of the defendant no. 1 are presumed to be correct for the sake of arguments that it was supplied on 06.02.2008 lastly, even then he can not be said to escape his liability with regard to any fault which is not due to the negligence of plaintiff however. In the entire case, the defendant has not taken any such defence that it was due to the sheer negligence of the plaintiffs except by stating that the leakage of gas could be due to some other reasons like family dispute among the plaintiffs which should be investigated properly. No such report otherwise has been filed on behalf of the defendants. Even otherwise, considering the principle of strict liability, the standard of utmost care and attention which is casted upon the defendant no. 1 and its employer is very high. Defendants can not be allowed to say that there was no complaint from the side of plaintiff or her husband who was registered consumer, that there was any deficiency in service or any complaint against the defendant no. 1. In such cases, like the present one, where the nature of the goods provided is very dangerous as it is highly inflammable, only one incident is sufficient and there is no need to call for any previous complaints in order to CS No.591/14 Page No. 29/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
corroborate the same and to decide the liability of the defendants. Plaintiff can not be asked to cite earlier instances of lapses on the part of defendants. In such cases, like the present one, the service provider is always covered by an insurance policy because considering the nature of goods supplied, it is always beyond the scope of the defendant no. 1 to answer each and every incident and pay the damages. In these circumstance, therefore, the role of Insurance Companies comes into picture as they by virtue of the contract of insurance binds themselves to the liability to pay to third person. Most glaring example is that of motor accidental cases. In the present case, plaintiff examined PW5 who brought the record pertaining to the call made on that day which is Ex. PW5/1. Any further report thereafter, however, has not been filed by the plaintiff. The defendant no. 2 had taken the cylinder in question after the alleged incident, however, has not filed any report till date in that regard to show that there was no manufacturing defect in the cylinder or regulator. Defendant no. 2 has not led any evidence in this case which becomes very important in these background. Therefore, in these circumstances, the principle of "silence amounts to speech" can be considered here for deciding the conduct of defendant no. 2 who is admittedly the manufacturer of the cylinders in question. It is due to this conduct of defendant no. 2 as he did not file any report in this CS No.591/14 Page No. 30/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
regard, the case of plaintiff seeking claim from defendant no. 1 or its principal and the insurer could not be processed as it has been stated by defendant no. 3 in its evidence that that the plaintiff had not furnished the relevant documents. Similar facts have been stated on behalf of defendant no. 4 during final arguments as well as in their affidavit filed by Satish Sharma which is available on record, though never tendered in examination in chief. It is, therefore, due to the conduct of defendant no. 2 the claim of plaintiff could not be processed in due process of law. Therefore, the duty of the defendant no. 2 is further increased and it is considered that he deliberately withheld the records from the plaintiff as well as from the court, more particularly when the case for compensation/ damages has been filed by the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 could have filed any such record to show his bonafide that there was no manufacturing defect in the said cylinder or regulator. In these circumstances, therefore, defendant no. 1 being the service provider and defendant no. 2 being the employer can not be allowed to take vague pleas that there was no defect in the regulator or cylinder and the plaintiff also did not furnished anything to the contrary and it was her duty to prove her case primarily. In these circumstances, the plaintiff, therefore, has shifted the burden upon the defendants and the defendants can not be said to shift the burden again upon the plaintiff due to their CS No.591/14 Page No. 31/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
misconduct by withhelding the relevant information with them. It is pertinent to mention here that till date no such report, as already mentioned above regarding cylinder and regulator has been filed on record by the defendants. The plaintiff, therefore, can not be casted upon with duty to furnish any such report which was never within her contemplation.
10. In support of their contentions, the counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon certain judgments:
Madhuri Govilka and Ors. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation & Others, IV (2006) CPJ 338 (NC), National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
"This judgment is also pertaining to the leakage of LPG cylinder due to its defectiveness and in such cases, the liability of dealer/ manufacturer was considered by the court and it was considered in this case that inference of negligence or supply of defective cylinder on the part of manufacturer and dealer can be drawn. Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable in such cases. It has been further held in this case that once it is concluded that the cylinder had manufacturing defect therefore, the manufacturer is liable. As per the dealership agreement, the liability of manufacturer visavis dealer is on principle to principle basis. In this case both the manufacturer and dealer were CS No.591/14 Page No. 32/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
made liable to pay compensation. In this case, the court went on to further consider that the opposite party had not brought on record anything to establish that the gas cylinder was not defective in any other manner/ respect or that the accident had not occurred the way in which it is contended by the complainants. It is apparent that no other inference other than that of negligence or supply of defective cylinder on the part of opposite parties can be drawn. Complainants have established that the gas cylinder caught fire and this aspect is not disputed by the opposite party. This establishes beyond doubt that the gas cylinder was defective. In this case, the plea of smell of the gas leakage was taken by the opposite party and in that regard it is further stated that in such a case it can not be said that the deceased Govilkar ought to have called for a person from the office of the dealer for verification of gas cylinder."
It has been further held in this case that, "In our view this shows a typical negative approach on the part of officers of insurance company and such type of preparation of false defense increases the litigations in this country. In such case, such defense on the part of nationalized insurance company is totally unjustifiable. Hence, manufacturer and dealer are liable to pay compensation and it would be opened to them to recover the sum assured from the insurance company."
CS No.591/14 Page No. 33/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
Counsel for the plaintiff has also relied upon one Land mark judgment titled as Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 ACJ 1298, under which the law on the subject regarding payment of compensation have been dealt at length and the plaintiff has filed the present suit of compensation on the basis of formula laid down in this case.
Plaintiff has also relied upon another Judgment Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar, 2011 ACJ I, in the Hon'ble Supreme court of India, decided on 18.10.2010.
In this case, the court has held and observed the principle of assessment for determination of loss of future earning of the injured with reference to extent of his permanent disablement. The principles laid down in this case are:
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability).
CS No.591/14 Page No. 34/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
(iii) The doctor who treated an injuredclaimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.
The plaintiff has also relied upon another Judgment which titled as K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2012 ACJ 2694, under which the court has further elaborated the principle of assessment in the cases of loss of earning power and permanent disability. In this case injured had sustained injuries resulting in 40% and therefore, was permanently disabled. The tribunal had awarded Rs. 5 Lacs for loss of earning capacity and further Rs. 3 Lacs towards permanent disablement. The court justified the granting of compensation under both heads.
Plaintiff has also relied upon another Judgment regarding quantification of compensation titled as Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar & Another, 2014 ACJ 653.
In this case, the court relied upon the case of victims of Uphar CS No.591/14 Page No. 35/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
tragedy and laid down that in case of injuries where there was amputation of right leg above knee and injured was hospitalized for 46 days and remained under treatment of three months having an earning of 4500/ per month and suffered 75% loss of earning capacity, the tribunal granted the compensation of Rs. 4,83,472/ which was further enhanced by Hon'ble High court to Rs. 6, 35,808/ which again was enhanced to Rs. 14,59,100/.
The counsel for the defendant no. 1 & 3, on the other hand has relied upon one judgment titled as Palraj Vs. Divisional Controller, NEKRTC, III (2010) ACC 915 (SC).
The judgment relied upon by the defendant is upon Workmen Compensation Act. None of the plaintiffs herein are covered under the definition of Workmen, hence, the judgment relied upon by defendant no. 1 & 3 is not applicable in the present case.
11. After considering all the above mentioned judgments so relied upon by the parties respectively, it is reflected that the judgment of Madhuri Govilka (supra) is directly applicable upon the present facts and circumstances. Defendants no. 1 & 3 have tried to create confusion about the date of delivery of cylinder to the plaintiff. Defendants themselves have not been able to produce the relevant record after 06.02.2008. Defendants no. 1 & 3 themselves have CS No.591/14 Page No. 36/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
stated at one point that the record of supplying the cylinder is normally kept by them for about six months, however, they have stated that it has been destroyed. No explanation has been furnished as to why such record has been destroyed within one or two months. The most relevant aspect to be considered by this court is that there was no mishandling by the plaintiff while using the said cylinder on that fateful day. Whether the cylinder was supplied on 06.02.2008 or 12.03.2008, does not become that much relevant for the reason that till 12.03.2008 there was no such incident. In the case of Madhuri Govilka (supra) this fact was also considered by the court. In that case, the cylinder was supplied on 12.08.1995 and the incident occurred on 26.08.1995. The defendants have not been able to show anything to the contrary that there was no manufacturing defect in the cylinder/ regulator and it was perfectly all right. This assumption is further strengthen with the fact that when the cylinder in question was taken by the manufacturer for filing its report regarding its defectiveness, such report was never filed nor has been filed till date. Therefore, the judgment of Madhuri Govilka (supra) is directly applicable in the present facts and circumstances.
12. With these observations, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that defendants no. 1 & 2 are primarily liable to the damages CS No.591/14 Page No. 37/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
and losses as well as mental agony including physical pain and suffering by the plaintiff no. 1, who also became physically disabled to the extent of 52% for which she has discharged the burden proving thereof by examining the concerned witness, and by the minor children of plaintiff no. 1.
Coming to the liability of defendants no. 3 & 4, the policy entered into with defendant no. 2 is filed on record by them. It is stated by defendant no. 3 that they are liable only to the extent of terms and conditions mentioned in the policy itself. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the law of insurance the terms and conditions of any policy are relevant only in between the defendant no. 2 on the one hand and defendant no. 3 & 4 on the other hand for which plaintiff has no concern . The concern of the plaintiff as mentioned in the plaint itself to seek compensation and damages. Whether it is a liability of defendants no. 1 & 2 only or through them it is the liability of their insurance company, it depends upon the negligence of defendants no. 1 & 2. If defendants no. 1 & 2 are considered to be negligent, as they have been considered accordingly, then plaintiff is entitled for the compensation and damages.
Coming again to the liability of defendants no. 3 & 4, it is pertinent to mention here that under the guise of terms and conditions CS No.591/14 Page No. 38/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
of standard contract, the insurance company can not escape its liability towards the public at large. Such terms and conditions of standard contract can not be considered and interpreted to the greatest disadvantage of the public at large. The object of the contract of insurance is that the person who is having a bigger pocket can share the burden of payment easily as he has been enjoying the fruits by providing the insurance to its customers. It is, therefore, always considered that the liability in such cases where there is an insurance and where there is fault of the person towards his negligence and his own conduct towards its consumer then all the persons including their insurance companies should be answerable and made liable to the public at large. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that such liability of defendants no. 1 & 2 is also extended to defendants no. 3 &
4. Hence, all the defendants are liable to pay damages and compensation to the plaintiff.
Coming to the quantification of the damages which is to be granted to the plaintiffs, the assessment so done by the plaintiff which has been filed on record is according to the judgment of Sarla Verma (supra), Raj Kumar (supra), K. Suresh (supra) and Sanjay Kumar (supra). I am of the considered opinion that this assessment has been done correctly and reasonably and therefore, the assessment has been done in a justifiable manner. It is pertinent to mention here that CS No.591/14 Page No. 39/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
the plaintiff himself has asked for the compensation upto Rs. 10 Lacs. In these circumstances, as the plaintiffs have been able to establish their case against the defendants, they are entitled for the compensation of Rs. 10 Lacs by way of damages against the defendants no. 1 & 2 who are primarily liable for the payment to them. Defendant no. 1 & 2 are directed to pay the said amount within two months from the date of order. It would be opened to defendants no. 1 & 2 to recover the said amount from their respective insurance companies i.e. defendants no. 3 & 4 accordingly. The interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery is also granted accordingly alongwith the cost of the suit.
13. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Announced & dictated in the (Prashant Kumar)
open court today i.e. on 30.07.2014 ADJ04(NW)/Rohini Courts
Delhi/30.07.2014
CS No.591/14 Page No. 40/42
Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRASHANT KUMAR , ADJ4 (NORTHWEST) ROOM NO.212, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
DECREE CS No. 591/14 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
1. Saroj Bala W/o Sh. Rajender Singh, 218, Singhu Village, Narela, Delhi110040
2. Deepak (Minor) S/o Sh. Rajender Singh.
3. Suraj (Minor) S/o Sh. Rajender Singh.
All R/o 218, Singhu Village, Narela, Delhi110040.
(Plaintiffs No. 2 & 3 are minors suing through plaintiff no. 1 who is their mother, natural guardian and next friend for the suit) .............Plaintiffs Versus
1. Raju Gas Service, U190, Vijay Nagar, Railway Road, Narela, Delhi110040.
2. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
67th Floor, North Tower, Scope Minar, District Centre, Luxmi Nagar, Delhi110092.
3. National Insurance Company Limited.
7th Floor, Hemkunt House, Rajender Place, New Delhi110008.
4. United India Insurance Company Limited 133, Jahangir Building, 1st Floor, M. G. Road, Port, Mumbai .......Defendants Plaint presented on 04.09.2009 CS No.591/14 Page No. 41/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.
Claim for : Suit for damages of Rs. 10 Lacs.
This suit coming for final judgment on 30.07.2014 in the presence of parties with their respective counsels. The suit stands decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and hence, they are entitled for the compensation of Rs. 10 Lacs by way of damages against the defendants Contd.../ 2 no. 1 & 2 who are primarily liable for the payment to them. Defendant no. 1 & 2 are directed to pay the said amount within two months from the date of order. It would be opened to defendants no. 1 & 2 to recover the said amount from their respective insurance companies i.e. defendants no. 3 & 4 accordingly. The interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery is also granted accordingly alongwith the cost of the suit.
COST OF SUIT
PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT
S.No Particulars Amt. S.No. Particulars Amt.
1. Stamp for plaint Rs. 1. Stamp for plaint Ni
12,104 / l
2. Stamp for power Nil 2. Stamp for power Ni
l
3. Process Fee. Nil. 3. Process Fee Ni
l
4. Miscellaneous Rs.2/ 4. Miscellaneous Ni
l
TOTAL Rs. TOTAL Ni
12,106 / l
Given under my hand and the seal of this Court on 30.07.2014. SEAL (PRASHANT KUMAR) ADJ4 (N/W) Rohini Courts CS No.591/14 Page No. 42/42 Saroj Bala Vs. Raju Gas Service & Others.