State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Dinesh Raghuveer Gudigar And Others on 21 April, 2021
Appeal No. 1228/ 2014
Filed on: 22.09.2014
Disposed on: 21.04.2021
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF APRIL 2021
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 1228/2014
United India Insurance Co.,
Ltd., 1st Floor, Noukarar ......Appellant/s
Bhavan Complex, V.T. Road,
Bhatkal, Now represented by
its Regional Manager,
United India Insurance Co.,
Ltd., Regional Office,
No.3, Enkay Complex,
Keshwapur, Hubli 580 023.
(By Sri A.N. Krishna Swamy)
V/s
1. Sri Dinesh Raghuveer
Gudigar, Aged about 51 ...Respondent/s
years, Occ : Business,
2. Smt. Gayatri Umesh
Gudigar, Aged about 41
years, Occ : Household,
3. Nagaraj Umesh Gudigar,
Aged about 25 years,
Occ : Student,
All are r/at Mavalli-1,
Sonarkeri, Murdeshwar.
(By Sri R.B. Deshpande for
R-1 to 3)
2
Appeal No. 1228/ 2014
4. M/s Durgambika
Distributor, Mavalli,
Murdeshwar,
Taluk : Bhatkal.
(By Sri Nagaraj.S.Jain)
5. Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd.,
Regd. Office: No.17,
Jamshedji Tata Road,
Mumbai 400 020.
(By Sri Mallikarjun.C.
Basareddy)
ORDER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER
1. The appellant/Opposite Party No.3 has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt. 02.08.2014 passed in CC.No.10/2013 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karwar.
2. We shall refer to the parties as per the ranking before the District Forum.
3. The facts leading to the appeal are as hereunder; It is the case of the complainant that the complainant No.1 had taken LPG cooking gas connection bearing 3 Appeal No. 1228/ 2014 Customer No.601280 and the complainant No.2 is the wife and the complainant No.3 is the son of Late Umesh Narasimha Gudigar. On 21.10.2011 since nozzle valve of the gas cylinder was not properly fixed, the cylinder exploded and fire broke out resulting in grievous burn injuries to Umesh narasimha Gudigar. Immediately he was taken to RNS Hospital, Murdeshwar and from there he was shifted to KMC Hospital, Manipal where he succumbed to the injuries on 27.10.2011. Besides, the house was severely damaged. FIR was registered in the Murdeshwar Police Station in UDR No.25/2011. The accident took place due to defective cylinder supplied by the Opposite Parties. The house of the complainant No.1 was damaged resulting in loss to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, the complaint.
4. The Opposite Party No.1 entered appearance through its counsel and filed version denying the alleged deficiency in service by contending inter-alia that even though gas cylinder was supplied to the complainant No.1 under Customer No.601280, the cylinder which exploded was 4 Appeal No. 1228/ 2014 not supplied by Opposite Party No.1 and the decased and complainant Nos.2 & 3 were not residing in the house of the complainant No.1 and that the complainant No.1 had obtained LPG Dealers package policy from United India Insurance Company and that the complaint is bad for non- joinder of insurance company as necessary party, hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. Opposite Party No.2 remained absent despite service of notice, hence, placed exparte.
6. During the pendency of the case, the complainant got impleaded the insurance company as Opposite Party No.3 and got amended the complaint by inserting para-8(a) as below;
The Opposite Party No.1 is having LPG dealers package policy from the Opposite Party No.3 for the period from 13.03.2011 to 12.03.2012. Therefore, the Opposite Party No.3 is vicariously liable to settle the claim of the complainant.
5Appeal No. 1228/ 2014 The Opposite Party No.3 insurance company appeared and denied the alleged deficiency in service by contending inter- alia that the gas cylinder exploded and fire broke out due to the negligence of the deceased himself and hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.
7. After trial, the District Commission partly allowed the complaint by directing the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.3,81,000/- to the complainant Nos. 2 & 3 with interest at 10% from 21.10.2011, till realization. Further directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages to complainant No.1 with interest at 10% from 21.10.2011, till realization and Rs.2,000/- towards costs.
8. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/Opposite Party No.3 is in appeal. Heard the arguments.
9. Looking to the appeal memo and the order passed by the District Commission, Karwar, we noticed that the Respondent No.1 is the owner of the house bearing Mavalli 6 Appeal No. 1228/ 2014 Gram Panchayat No.552, situated in Sonarkeri Murdeshwar and he obtained the LPG Gas under Customer No.601280 from Respondent No.5 through distributor Respondent No.4. The deceased Sri Umesh Narasimha Gudigar the brother in law of Respondent No.1 was residing in the said house along with his wife Respondent No.2 and son Respondent No.3 as per aliya Santana custom prevailing in their community. The Respondent No.5 having LPG Dealers Package Policy from the appellant for a period from 13.03.2011 to 21.10.2011. Due to leakage of gas cylinder resulting the damages to the house and grievous burn injuries to Sri Umesh Narasimha Gudigar who succumbed to the injuries in KMC Hospital, Manipal on 27.10.2011. In the present case, the appellant contended in his objection in lower court that the cylinder exploded and fire broke out due to the negligence of deceased himself, but, the appellant has failed to discharge the burden of any negligence on the part of the deceased Sri Umesh Narasimha Gudigar. If the cylinder is locked or if it is blasted, then the dealer and the gas company are responsible. Under the 7 Appeal No. 1228/ 2014 Marketing Disclosure Guidelines for LPG distribution, it is the dealers responsibility to check the cylinder properly before delivery. Let we know that the LPG companies take public liability policy from insurance company for this type of incidence. It is the third party insurance. For this insurance, LPG companies pay a large amount of money to the insurance company every year as a premium. The customers do not have to pay any kind of money for this insurance and customers received compensation from the insurance company only. The third party liability policy (Public Liability Policy) provides accident cover, reimbursement, medical expenses and property damages at customers registered premises. Hence, in our opinion, the District Commission after considering the materials on records has rightly awarded the compensation and damages on relying some citations which is just and proper. We found that there is no any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the District Commission and does not require interference. Hence, the following;
8Appeal No. 1228/ 2014
ORDER The appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission for needful action.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*