Arora Gas Service vs Bobby Ahuja

VIDE this order two appeals are being disposed of having been filed against order of the District Forum, Amritsar dated August 14,1996. Appeal No. 462 has been filed by Arora Gas Service -the opposite party for setting aside order of the District Forum whereby compensation was granted and Appeal No. 515 has been filed by Mrs. Body Ahuja and Others for enhancement of the compensation. At this stage, it may be observed that opposite party 2 - Indian Oil Corporation also filed an appeal against the impugned order. However, on the statement recorded on behalf of the complainant, the name of the Corporation was scored of from the complaint with the result the direction given in the impugned order against the Corporation stood set aside and the appeal was accordingly disposed of on January 8,1997.

MOST of the facts as alleged by the complainants in the complaint stand admitted. The dispute narrows down relates to the negligent rendering of service by opposite party -M/s. Arora Gas service in the matter of supplying gas cylinder, which was defective that either it was leaking at the time of delivery or it leaked at the time of fixing Pressured Regulator thereon. Immediately on igniting match stick, the kitchen was engulfed with fire which spread to other rooms in the house resulting in causing burn injuries to Mrs. Boby Ahuja and others. The factum that gas cylinder was supplied by M/s. Arora Gas Service that it leaked and caused injuries is not disputed. As per allegations of the complainants, the gas cylinder was supplied by the opposite party aforesaid on April 19, 1993 whereas the occurrence took place on April 24, 1993. All the injured subsequently got treatment from the hospital and thus suffered pain and suffering that they claim compensation in the complaint. It is also admitted fact that the complainants were living in the house as joint Hindu Family and they were having other gas connections as well four in number. Out of them, two gas connections were issued by the present appellant and the other two by other Company. The stand taken up by the opposite party was that the matter was got investigated promptly. The leakage of gas was on account of fiddling of nozzle of the cylinder by Darshan Lal who had brought out of kitchen the cylinder and tampered with the nozzle, the pin having struck, the gas leaked, the fire erupted from the nearby gas stove which was on. In this manner, they entirely disputed their liability. The gas cylinder and the pressure regulator were taken away by employees of the Indian Oil Corporation. On behalf of the complainants, the affidavits of the injured were produced which were more or less verbatim narration of the complainant''s case. The complainant also produced medical reports relating to the injuries suffered by the complainants to support their case that they were caused by gas burns. On the other hand, the opposite party produced affidavit of Sunita Arora, proprietor of M/s. Arora Gas Service. Reference was made therein to the report by Sher Singh of Indian Oil Corporation who had investigated the case and had reported that Darshan Lal one of the complainants informed him that the pressure regulator was not being fitted inspite of twists on the cylinder that he brought the gas cylinder outside the kitchen and meddled with the pin. The cylinder fell down, gas leaked, fire erupted from the adjoining gas stove resulting in causing injuries to the persons. The District Forum held that the complainant had succeeded in establishing negligence on the part of the appellant in supplying a leaking gas cylinder and the fire erupted as per allegations of the complainants, causing injuries. There was deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite party and he granted compensation under different heads to the complainants as under : Mrs. Boby Ahuja 1,39,202.00 Miss Anu Bala 99,991.00 Mrs. Shama Ahuja 15,000.00 Hazari [domestic servant] 22,756.00 Raj Kumar 43,442.00 Darshan Lal 40,000.00 Loss of property 3,650.00 Pain and suffering 5,000.00

Another sum of Rs. 3,934/ - was ordered to be paid towards miscellaneous expenses. In this manner, grand total of compensation of Rs. 3,99,690/ -. Both the opposite parties were liable to pay jointly and severally Rs. 3,49,690/ - to the complainants. A sum of Rs. 50,000/ - was to be paid by the opposite party No. 1 - the appellant to Raj Kumar and Darshan Lal for suspension of the gas supply since July, 1993. The opposite party No. 2 -Indian Oil Corporation was directed to cancel the Gas Agency of opposite party No. 1, the present appellant. Suspension of the gas supply was ordered to be restored within a fortnight to the complainant.

PRELIMINARY arguments have been addressed on me question of negligence on the part of M/s. Arora Gas Service, the appellant in rendering service in supplying a leaking gas cylinder that caused occurrence. There are two different versions, one by the complainants and the other by the opposite party, which have been briefly referred to above. Counsel for the parties emphatically argued that the version of the opposite party was not established and if established, was not sufficient to decide the question of negligence. It is in this dilemma that it is to be observed that even if the version put forth by the opposite party is not proved, that automatically will not prove that me version put forth by the complainant is established. The complainants have to stand on their own feet and if their evidence produced is found to be insufficient, they would fail. Taking up version put forth by the opposite parties first, the only evidence produced is the affidavit of Sunita and support is sought from the report of Sher Singh. By merely alleging in the written statement of Sher Singh having made the report will not be enough. In order to prove the report, affidavit of Sher Singh was required to be produced. Otherwise, Sunita had no personal knowledge or gained knowledge on visiting the spot and examining the material on investigation. Mere reference to the report of Sher Singh in the affidavit of Sunita, who is not the author will not prove its contents.

ARGUING for the sake of arguments the report could be taken into consideration, the source of information of Sher Singh was the statement made by Darshan Lal orally only. Otherwise there is no material that Sher Singh made inquiries from all the injured or he recorded the statement of injured including Darshan Lal. In his affidavit, Darshan Lal denied factual aspect of bringing the cylinder outside or meddling with the nozzle or the pin or that it fell down and caught fire from the adjoining gas stove. No doubt in his affidavit, he is silent about making any statement to Sher Singh, that will not in any manner advance the case of the opposite party. The report of Sher Singh is Annexure ''A''. It refers to the substantial evidence as observed by Sher Singh on visiting the spot. The report is dated April 27, 1993 and the accident date is mentioned as April 24, 1993. Name of the consumer has been given as Raj Kumar and the place of the accident has been mentioned as outside the kitchen. Column of size of the family, total number of members has been stated to be 13, 8 adults and 5 children, joint family. It is a three storey building and the floor in dispute is at the central floor. They were using the gas for the last one year. The description of the kitchen has been reported to be very small and congested. The kitchen is fully closed at night. There were three additional cylinders and one was involved in the accident. Type of the valve is pin type, click on self closing. Location of the LPG Hot Plate was on the ground with single burner and the second on the platform, double burner. Describing the condition of the equipment, it was reported that hot plate''s manufacturing label was burnt, rubber tube one burnt, the other safe O.K. Pressure Regulator one IH 05 Pratha 2 Kerosene SDC 12 OK. Serial Number of the cylinder was 206071. Under the column choke for gas leakage, it was recorded CNC consumer. As to when installations were last checked, it was reported only at initial installation. With regard to the description of the accident, the source of cause of leakage and the source of ignition were mentioned. Names of the persons involved in the accident were also mentioned and their relationship with the consumer. Sher Singh''s designation was given as Deputy Manager, located at Amritsar. While narrating the accident, the aforesaid facts were mentioned as uttered by Darshan Lal. Giving the cause, it was observed that hot plate was kept on the ground and secondly, consumer''s brother tried to do the self repair. The report was based on visit to the spot on 25, 26 and 27 April, 1993 and information provided by Darshan Lal, brother of the consumer. Some reports regarding occurrence published in the news paper were also taken notice of alongwith copy of the report (DDR) at the Police Station. Obviously this report does not prove negligence on the part of the dealer in the matter of supplying a leaking cylinder. In any case, it is not helpful to the complainant.

THE complainants as already observed above were to stand on their own feet. The number of persons given affidavits, is not enough. It is the quality of evidence that is required to establish the case. Since the affidavits of the complainants are verbatim the same, reference is being made to one of them, namely Mrs. Boby Ahuja. On April 24,1993 at 7.30 a.m., she went to the kitchen of Raj Kumar to warm the milk. She found out that the gas cylinder had emptied as no gas was coming out in the burner, when the same was put to on position and was ignited. At that stage, she called Darshan Lal to replace the cylinder. He came and removed the empty cylinder brought in the filled from another room, removed its safety cap and fitted the regulator on it. Match stick was ignited and the burner was put to fire by Darshan Lal. The gas cylinder as well as regulator caught fire with the result the fire spread over since the exhaust fan was working in the kitchen. After a few minutes, the electricity was gone. Thereafter, she narrated how injuries were suffered by them. Darshan Lal went to the bath room, fetched water and tried to put off the fire from her sons ? The whole body was gutted in fire. She also rescued Raj Kumar with the help of Fire Brigade personnel subsequently. Hazari, the domestic servant was in kitchen at that time. He also made similar statement in his affidavit. Other persons came subsequently or they suffered injuries in their rooms and they deposed accordingly. The gas cylinder was brought to the house on April 19, 1994. The occurrence took place on April 24,1994. There was a gap of four days. If at the time of taking delivery of the gas cylinder, the same was leaking, substantial amount of gas must have leaked by the time the cylinder was put to use. It was argued that since there was a cap on the cylinder, the gas was not leaking at the time of taking delivery or it could not be noticed that the gas was leaking. Be that as it may since the seal was on the cylinder [cap], it is to be presumed that the gas was not leaking from the cylinder, moreso, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary produced on the record. The argument of learned Counsel for the complainant that gas cylinder was neither weighed nor checked at the time of taking delivery from the godown is of no consequence. Whether nozzle of the cylinder was meddled with or not, the gas leaked from the cylinder in substantial amount when attempt was either made to ignite it that the entire house was engulfed with fire. The gas could leak either from the cylinder nozzle or from the regulator or from the tube or from the burner. However, it could catch fire only when ignited. The fire could be ignited from the nearby other gas stove burner. Otherwise, normally, the gas was to go upwards to the ceiling. The other way that the gas could be ignited was from the burner of the gas stove with which the regulator was fitted. That could be with the match stick having been ignited and the flow of gas being contacted, the entire house obviously could be engulfed in fire. In view of these different possibilities, some of them having not been ruled out from the material produced by the complainant, their evidence cannot be accepted that the accident occurred in the manner stated by them and that too from leakage of the gas from the cylinder only. It was at that stage that during arguments, learned Counsel for the complainant tried to make out a point that before the District Forum in the complaint itself, a suggestion was put forth to call upon the opposite parties to produce the cylinder and pressure regulator which admittedly had been taken by them for laboratory test. The argument is that the District Forum did not pass any order on such a request. This contention is devoid of merit. The record does not indicate that such a request was pressed specifically during the proceedings before the District Forum. A suggestion put forth during arguments in the appeal that if now the cylinder and pressure regulator are sent for laboratory test, the same is not acceptable. Counsel for the complainants argued that no useful purpose would be served by this exercise as the opposite parties have already tampered therewith when they stated that the same had been tested. Such being the position, it was not considered appropriate to get the cylinder and regulator involved in the accident for any further test. In the absence of such material, no presumption in favour of the complainants can be raised. If no adverse inference is to be drawn. The complainants have utterly failed to prove either from their statements given on affidavits or from the circumstantial evidence referred to by them in proving that the occurrence took place on account of negligentact of the opposite party -appellant in the matter of rendering service. It may be observed that since the cylinder remained in possession of the complainants for a period of four days and if they did not properly fix the pressure regulator or otherwise allowed the gas to pass through the burner or the tube before igniting the match stick, no fault can be found with the opposite party. It was Darshan Lal who took the process of fixing pressure regulator on the cylinder and if at that time, there was mass leakage, it could be observed as LPG gas emits an obnoxious smell, which could not go unnoticed. It was not advisable in such circumstances to ignite the match stick. There is another aspect which also needs consideration.

AS per allegations of the complainant, there was exhaust fan. In case, the exhaust fan was on as is suggested, the occurrence would not have taken place as leaked gas would have gone out promptly. One of the safety measures in the case of leakage of gas is to open the doors, windows and ventilators after closing the nobs of the burners and to put of the regulator nob so that the leaked gas may leave the premise and evaporate in the air. The very fact that the entire house was engulfed with fire indicates that huge quantity of gas had already accumulated in the kitchen as well as in the rooms that suddenly, it engulfed the entire house but negligence on the part of the complainants who tried to ignite the gas stove in such circumstances is writ large and they have to suffer for their own act. In view of the discussion as referred to above, the appeal filed by the complainants deserves to be dismissed without any further discussion regarding enhancement of compensation.

THE appeal filed by opposite party No. 2 -M/s. Arora Gas Service is allowed and the order of the District Forum granting compensation to the complainants is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.