State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rajendra P.Agrawal vs Indian Oil Corpn. on 27 February, 2024
Daily Order M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 1257 OF 2014 (Arising out of order dated 02.06.2014 passed in C.C.No.288/2011 by District Commission, Satna) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION ... APPELLANT. Versus RAJENDRA PRASAD AGRAWAL & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS. FIRST APPEAL NO. 1284 OF 2014 (Arising out of order dated 02.06.2014 passed in C.C.No.288/2011 by District Commission, Satna) RAJENDRA PRASAD AGRAWAL ... APPELLANT. Versus INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS. FIRST APPEAL NO. 1321 OF 2014 (Arising out of order dated 02.06.2014 passed in C.C.No.288/2011 by District Commission, Satna) IFFCO TOKYO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. ... APPELLANT. Versus RAJENDRA PRASAD AGRAWAL & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS. BEFORE: HON'BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI : ACTING PRESIDENT HON'BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES : Shri V. P. Garg, learned counsel for the complainant. Shri R. K. Lokhande, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1-Indian Oil Corporation. None for the opposite party no.2-distributor. Shri Nitin Jain, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3-insurance company. -2- O R D E R
(Passed on 27.02.2024) The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Acting President:
The aforesaid appeals arise out of the order dated 02.06.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Satna (for short 'District Commission') in C.C.No.288/2011, whereby the complaint filed by the complainant has been allowed.
2. The opposite party no.1-Indian Oil Corporation has filed First Appeal No.1257/2014 and the opposite party no.2-insurance company has filed First Appeal No.1321/2014 for setting aside the impugned order whereas the complainant has filed First Appeal No.1284/2014 for enhancement of compensation. Since all the aforesaid appeals arise out of one order, therefore, they are taken up together and are being decided by this order. Facts of the case are taken from First Appeal No.1257/2014 unless otherwise stated.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had obtained a LPG connection (DBC) for domestic use from opposite party no.2 the distributor of opposite party no.1 at Uchera. The consumer number of which is UI-652. The opposite party no.1 took insurance policy from the opposite party no.3-insurance company in relation to the accident occurred in the consumer premises. On 21.05.2010, at about 6.30 am, the -3- complainant's wife Smt. Ranu Agrawal along with his younger brother's wife Smt. Sarika Agrawal entered into the kitchen for preparing tea, and when she tried to lid the gas burner, at that time, it got burst and the entire kitchen came into flames resulting which the complainant's wife and his brother's wife sustained serious injuries and later they died in the hospital on 29.05.2010 and 30.05.2010 respectively. It is alleged that on account of supply of poor quality of gas cylinder, the said accident took place and later two persons died. It is submitted that he had purchased the said gas cylinder from the opposite party no.2 the dealer of the opposite party no.1 which was insured with the opposite party no.3-insurance company. On claim being made, the opposite parties did not pay the compensation whereas he is entitled to get Rs.10,00,000/- under the policy. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite parties approached the District Commission seeking relief.
4. The opposite party no.1-Indian Oil Corporation resisted the complainant stating that the complainant did not give any information about the incident to the corporation nor to the distributor, therefore, they could not get the matter investigated. The distributor is supplying gas cylinder after thorough check-up. Other attachments such as rubber tube, pressure regulator were found in good condition. As per opposite party no.1-corporation the accident occurred due to 5kg cylinder purchased from -4- the open market and for which the opposite parties cannot be held responsible. It is further submitted that for the consumers they had obtained insurance policy number 41013839 from the opposite party no,3-insurance company and therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation, if any. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed against it.
5. The opposite party no.2-distributor resisted the complaint stating that they are supplying gas cylinders to the consumers in good condition and the complainant used the cylinder for a long time. For the accident occurred, the complainant himself is responsible. The complainant did not inform the opposite party no.2 about the incident as also the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from it. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed against it.
6. The opposite party no.3-insurance company denied the allegations other than the admitted facts. It is submitted that there was no leakage from the gas cylinder supplied by the opposite party no.1 and 2 as the other attachments apparatus were found intact and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to compensate the complainant. The complainant did not inform the insurance company timely. On information being received on 26.03.2011, claim form was sent and on receipt of claim form, investigation was carried out. On investigation carried out by the -5- insurance company and the opposite party no.1-IOC no defects or leakage were found in the supplied cylinder to the complainant and its attachments. During investigation, this fact came to the knowledge that at the time of accident 5kg cylinder of other manufacturer was using on single burner stove and due to leakage in 5kg cylinder the gas accumulated in the kitchen and in the morning when the complainant's wife used the lighter or match box to start the gas burner fire broke out and the complainant's wife and his younger brother's wife sustained injuries. In such circumstances, no liability of insurance company to compensate the complainant was established. The insurance company has not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed against it.
7. The District Commission partly allowing the complaint directed the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 18.07.2011 till payment to the complainant within a period of two months. Compensation of Rs.5,000/- with costs of Rs.1,000/- is also awarded.
8. Heard. Perused the record.
9. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the opposite party no.3-insurance company has issued policy for a compensation of -6- Rs.10,00,000/- and therefore, the District Commission has awarded less amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. The District Commission ought to have directed the opposite party no.1 and 2 to pay remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. He argued that the District Commission has awarded a meager amount of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation whereas it should be Rs.5,00,000/- as due to death of his wife, the complainant had to suffer long life. He therefore prayed that the insurance claim be increased from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- and amount of compensation be increased from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-.
10. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1-Indian Oil Corporation Limited argued that the complainant lastly took the gas cylinder refill on 21.02.2010 and after three months i.e. on 21.05.2010 the said mishap took place. As per investigation report, it came to the conclusion that the complainant's wife was either using some other general market cylinder of 5kg or in the night she herself forgot to close the knob of the cylinder resulting into flow of LPG in the kitchen and in the morning when she lighted ignition sudden fire broke up. He argued that the burden lies on the complainant to prove negligence on part of opposite parties in supplying defective gas cylinder. He argued that the District Commission passed the order on the sole basis of sympathy and not on merits of the case. He argued that the District Commission failed to -7- appreciate the documents submitted by Indian Oil Corporation and the distributor and merely relying upon the contentions of the complainant passed the impugned order. He by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble National Commission in Indian Oil Corporation Vs Shri Hansmukhbhai M. Patel IV (2012) CPJ 289 (NC) & in Sawita Rani Vs Janta Gas Service & Ors decided on 1 March, 2021 and a decision of this Commiossion Babulal Lodhi Vs Hindustan Petroleum & Anr. III (2009) CPJ 32 (MP) argued that the Indian Oil Corporation cannot be held liable.
11. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.3-insurance company argued that the District Commission has grossly erred in law in not appreciating the fact that there was no leakage from the gas cylinder being supplied by the opposite party no.1 & 2 and the aforesaid incident occurred on account of negligence of complainant's wife and therefore no liability can be fastened on the insurance company. He argued that the District Commission failed to appreciate that the complainant's wife was using the gas cylinder of 5kg of other seller or manufacturer on a single burner stove and due to leakage from the said gas cylinder of 5kg, the gas spread and collected in the kitchen and in the morning when she used the lighter or match box, the incident of fire occurred. He argued that the District Commission failed to appreciate that on receiving intimation, the insurance company investigated the matter and it was found that there -8- was no loss occurred to the aforesaid gas cylinder being supplied by the opposite party no.1 and 2 and its equipments, which clearly establishes the fact that the fire incident was occurred due to usage of 5kg cylinder of other seller or manufacturer on a single burner stove. The District Commission overlooked the contentions advanced on behalf of appellant insurance company. He argued that the learned District Commission also overlooked the important fact that the complainant has prepared the claims just to gain undue benefits of the claim on illegal basis The claim was rightly rejected by the insurance company and there was no commission of negligence or unfair trade practice at the end of the insurance company.
12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the documents available on record as also the impugned order we find that the complainant was having LPG gas connection no.UI-652 of the opposite party no.1 and 2. On 21.05.2010 at about 6.30 am when the complainant's wife tried to lit the gas stove, the fire broke out as a result of which the complainant's wife and his younger brother's wife got burn injuries. They were immediately taken to Birla Hospital, Satna and thereafter Choithram hospital, Indore where complainant's wife Smt. Ranu Agrawal died on 29.05.2010 and his younger brother's wife Smt. Sarika Agrawal died on 30.05.2010.
-9-13. The prime defence of the opposite parties was that the accident did not take place due to cylinder supplied by the opposite party no.1 and 2 and instead it was due to leakage in the market made cylinder of 5 kg. It is pertinent to mention here that in paragraph 3 of reply, the opposite party no.1 has submitted that since the complainant did not give any intimation on 21.05.2010 to the opposite party no.1 and therefore investigation was not carried out. Later an investigation report in form A & B was submitted by Mohammad Ameen, Deputy Manager, LPG Sales, Indian Oil Corporation, Satna Area has been filed. Shri Ameen has also filed his affidavit wherein he has stated that on gathering information from different sources and on receiving instructions from the head office he conducted the investigation on 01.06.2010 and submitted the report in Format A and B. In the said report, he has stated that no sign of fire or any mechanical damage found on the pressure regulator and the pressure regulator was found in sound condition. He has also stated that the cylinder which was being used in the kitchen with two burner hot plate was not exposed to fire at all and was in very sound condition.
14. Further in head of Analysis he has stated that last cylinder delivery date for the customer was 21.02.2010 as per customer card and accident occurred on 21.05.2010. The customer only consumed 5.9 KG in 90 days and remaining 8.3 kg gas was available inside of the cylinder on -10- the day of investigation. He has specifically stated that as another brother of customer is living with his family in the adjacent building exchange of cylinders within brothers' families cannot be ruled out. At one end he has stated that the consumer used only 5.9 kg in 90 days and remaining 8.3 kg gas was available inside the cylinder on the other hand he has stated that exchange of cylinders within brothers' families cannot be ruled out. Thus there are contradictory statements in his report.
15. However, he has not cleared that from what sources he has collected the information. Also the accident took place on 21.05.2010 and investigation was carried out on 01.06.2010 and during investigation the gas cylinder, burner and other attachments were found in tact. Any person cannot live without food and he cannot wait for indefinite period for not preparing food, therefore, the possibility that the complainant replaced cylinder, gas burner and other attachments for further regular use cannot be ruled out.
16. The investigator's report, however, does not disclose the possible reason for explosion. There is nothing in the investigator's report that the cylinder supplied by the opposite party no.1 and 2 was not defective. In the absence of any strict proof that the cylinder was not defective, the opposite parties can be held liable for deficiency in service.
-11-17. From the documents on record, it is admitted that the opposite party no.1 took Public Liability Insurance Policy for LPG from the opposite party no.3. From the letter dated March 26,2011 of the opposite party no.3 insurance company addressed to the complainant, it is clear that he was asked to submit claim form along with all the original hospital papers with bills and their summary to the insurance company. Later the insurance company on the basis of alleged investigation report that the incident did not take place because of any defective cylinder supplied by the opposite party no.1 and 2, decline the claim. However, there is no credible evidence put forward by the opposite party no.1 and 2 that the cylinder supplied by them was not defective and accident did not occur from the cylinder supplied by them.
18. In such circumstances, the District Commission has correctly appreciated in detail the available evidence and therefore assessed the payable claim amount, to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation and costs of Rs.1,000/-.
19. The decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the opposite party no.1-Indian Oil Corporation are of no help as in the present case, it is the opposite party no.1, who took public liability insurance policy for LPG cylinders.
-12-20. So far as the appeal filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation is concerned, we find that the District Commission has adequately compensated the complainant.
21. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, we are not inclined to interfere with the observations made by the District Commission in the impugned order. The impugned order is affirmed. The aforesaid appeals, being devoid of any merits, are dismissed. However, no order as to costs.
22. This order be retained in First Appeal No.1257/2014 and a copy be placed in First Appeal No.1284/2014 and 1321/2014.
(A. K. Tiwari) (Dr. Srikant Pandey) Acting President Member