National Consumer Disputes Redressal
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Mala And Ors. on 8 January, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2(2007)CPJ80(NC)
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.1.2005 of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore whereby appellant and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were held jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 3 lakh along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint and this amount was to be paid only by the appellant to respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/complainants filed complaint, inter alia, alleging that they are having their residence at No. 1207, Kunwal Galli, Belgaun. Vasantrao Badami was the husband of respondent No. 1 while Mrs. Sneha Lal was the wife of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 3/O.P. No. 1 is the distributor of liquefied petroleum gas at Belgaun of respondent No. 4/O.P. No. 2 and both of them were insured with the appellant/opposite party No. 3. Respondent No. 1 is the consumer of liquefied petroleum gas of respondent No. 3, distributor. It was alleged that after the kitchen work was over and before going to bed it was ensured that the regulator of the gas cylinder was being kept closed. On 28.7.1995 at about 4.00 a.m. a blast occurred in the house in which the lives of Vasantrao Badami and Mrs. Sneha were lost. House also collapsed and valuable articles were damaged. It was further alleged that the gas cylinder supplied to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was negligently sealed and not checked properly before release and there was gradual leakage of gas from the regulator or the bottleneck and the valve of the cylinder which resulted in the formation of aerosol mixture. Amount of Rs. 1,50,000 was claimed towards loss of lives of said two persons, Rs. 8,50,000 towards damage to the house and household articles and Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation towards mental agony by respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
3. Complaint was contested separately by filing written versions by the appellant and respondent Nos. 3 and 4. In the written version dated 19.6.1998, the appellant alleged that it had issued a Miscellaneous Accident Insurance Policy (personal accident policy on unnamed basis) in favour of respondent No. 4 for a period from 16.4.1995 to 15.4.1996. Under this policy the liability of the appellant was limited to Rs. 25,000 per insured person. In the additional version filed later on, it was admitted that petitioner had issued Liquefied Petroleum Gas Dealer's Insurance Policy for the period from 27.4.1995 to 26.4.19996 in favour of respondent No. 3. However, liability to pay the amount claimed was denied. In its written version, respondent No. 3 admitted thathe is distributor of liquefied petroleum gas of respondent No. 4 at Belgaun and it was insured with the appellant. It was further admitted that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been residing at house No. 1207, Kunwal Gali, Belguan. However, it was alleged that it was respondent No. 2 who was the subscriber of LPG under Consumer No. 6695 with the answering respondent. It was stated that gas cylinder was supplied at the said house of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by the answering respondent through one of its delivery boys on 31.5.1995. Connection of the gas cylinder was properly done by the delivery boy. Thereafter gas cylinder was used without any complaint of leakage of any kind upto 28.7.1995. There was no possibility of leakage of gas from the cylinder supplied. It was denied that the cylinder was negligently sealed or not checked properly before release and there was leakage of gas as alleged. In the written version filed by respondent No. 4 it was additionally pleaded that gas cylinder is made of unbreakable material and sealed at the filling factory and there is no chance of any leakage from the body of cylinder. Formation of aerosol mixture could be only due to negligence on the part of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in not closing the gas cylinder completely before retiring for the night.
4. We have heard Mr. Niraj Singh for appellant, Mr. A.S. Kulkarni for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Girish Ananthamoorthy for respondent No. 3 and have been taken through the reports dated 4.8.1995 of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., respondent No. 4 and dated 29.3.1996 of Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore.
5. Respondent No. 2 alleged that he was the consumer of liquefied petroleum gas while respondent No. 3, distributor stated that it was respondent No. 1 who was the consumer of the gas. Since both respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the complainants it was hardly material which of them was the consumer of gas under respondent No. 3, distributor. It is not in dispute that gas cylinder at respondent Nos. 1 and 2's house at No. 1207 was supplied by respondent No. 3 on 31.5.1995 and that explosion wherein two lives were lost and house collapsed, had taken place in the morning hours of 28.7.1995. Thus, controversy between the parties centres around the fact if the incident had occurred as a result of defective cylinder supplied by respondent No, 3, distributor or due to negligence on the part of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and/or their family members in not closing the cylinder completely before retiring for the night on 27.7.1995. On this issue reference to the said two reports has become necessary. Copy of the report dated 4.8.1995 along with covering letter is at pages 74 to 77. Copy another report dated 29.3.1996 is at pages 121-122. Former report was prepared by the Investigating Officer of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. This notices that DPR/Rubber Tube/cylinder/hotplate were intact and in case the explosion would have been due to LPG leakage, then, there would be damage to the LPG equipments, which were found intact. Opinion as to cause of explosion as recorded in the report dated 29.3.1996 was:
The explosive in all probabilities may have occurred due to formation of aerosol mixture (mixture of gas and air at ambient conditions.)
6. Undisputedly, there has been gap of about 57 days between the supply of gas cylinder and the incident. Had there been any leakage in gas cylinder the gas would have exhausted within first few days of the installation and leakage must have been noticed during the said period. It is not the case of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that any leakage was noticed before incident. "The case as set up in the complaint about there being gradual leakage from the gas cylinder and cylinder being sealed negligently and not checked properly before release, stands belied by the said probabilities and the report dated 4.8.1995. As noticed above in the report dated 29.3.1996, the cause of explosion has been opined to be formation of aerosol mixture (mixture of gas and air in ambient conditions). Obviously, leakage of gas could be due to negligence on part of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and/or their family members in not closing the gas cylinder completely before retiring for the night on 27.7.1995 as is the case of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Neither of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 can, thus be held responsible for the incident in question. Doctrine of res ipsa loquitor on which heavy reliance was placed for fastening liability on respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by the State Commission, has no applicability to the facts of present case. Order under appeal cannot be legally sustained and has to be set aside also qua respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who have not filed the appeal.
7. Accordingly, while allowing appeal the order dated 27.1.2005 is set aside and complaint dismissed. No order as to cost.
8. Deposited amount will be released in favour of the appellant Insurance Company.