B.G.BHASKAR vs KARTHIK GAS AGENCIES

IN this complaint, the complainant, Sri B.G. Bhaskar, has sought compensation of Rs. 1,03,662.55 towards the damage caused, due to fire, to his house bearing No. 146/A, situated at R.V. Road, V.V. Puram, Bangalore-4.

NO. 1 is M/s Karthik Gas Agencies - distributors of gas cylinders who used to supply gas cylinders to the complainant; O.P. NO. 2 is M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., who are the manufacturers of L.P.G. cylinders, O.P. NO. 3 is the Insurance Co., that is Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., with whom O.P. NO. 1 had insured under "Multi-peril L.P. Gas Dealers Policy." It is the case of the complainant that he had taken gas connection to his house, referred above, which was being supplied through O.P. No. 1. He was using the gas since about 15 years.

The complainant has further averred thus : "On 17.4.1989, myself and my family left the house at about 5.00 p.m. locking the doors. We returned at about 8.30 p.m. and it was shocking for us to see a big gathering in front of our house and panic was created on seeing the crowd. I enquired one of the gatherers and my enquiry revealed that the gas cylinder burst out at my residence and that there was a damage and the Fire Brigade and Police who were summoned by one of the neighbors are putting up the flames and other investigation is going on. The Fire Brigade people put off the fires which were at the furniture and at other places and the gas cylinder was taken out and still the gas was leaking and to defuse it, the gas cylinder was taken to Lalbagh Tank."

THE complainant, nextly averred, that the cause of fire accident was due to gas leakage from the cylinder and so he sought compensation from the opposite parties. The complainant sought compensation of Rs. 81,922.55 for the damage caused to the building and Rs. 21,740/- for the damage caused to the house-hold articles.

THE complainant made claim with O.P. No. 3 on their refusal, filed the complaint claiming compensation. Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2, though served, remained absent. No version came to be filed on behalf of O.P. Nos. 1 and 2. It is only O.P. No. 3-the Insurance Company which filed the statement of objections disputing the claim made by the complainant. O.P. No. 3 admitted the fact that O.P. No. 1 had obtained a "Multi-peril L.P. Gas Dealers'' Policy" in respect of office premises at No. 32-A, Jain Temple Road, V.V. Puram, Bangalore, and godown premises at Timber Yard, Mysore Road, Bangalore. The policy was for a period from 2.7.1988 to 1.7.1989. O.P. No. 3, further averred that the property insured included stock-in-trade comprising of filled and empty cylinders valued at Rs. 3 lakhs, gas cylinders in transit i.e., during the deli very of the same to the customers also was included.

O.P. No. 3, denied the fact that the fire accident was due to the leakage of the gas from the gas cylinder. The liability was not covered if the leakage of the gas were to be due to the negligence of the customer i.e. the complainant. O.P. No. 3, thus disputed the claim made by the complainant and denied its liability to compensate the complainant.

DURING enquiry, the complainant examined himself as C.W.-1 and 3 other witnesses i.e., C.W.-2, C.W.-3 and C.W.-4. C.W.-2-Mr. M. Sridharis the Fire Brigade Officer; C.W.-3-is Mr. R. Raju, a Civil Contractor who had undertaken the work of repairing the house of the complainant; and C.W.-4, Sri Sreenath a dealer in gas and welding products and got exhibits C-1 to C-7 marked in evidence. Ex.C-1 is an estimate of the damage caused to the house of the complainant given by the Chartered Engineer and Architect; Ex. C-5 is the report given by the Fire Brigade Officer. O.P. No. 3 examined R.W.-1-Sri Channaba-savaiah, Divisional Manager, Bangalore, and got Ex. R-1 to R-4 marked in evidence. Ex.R-1 is the policy obtained by O.P. No. 1; Ex.R-3 is the letter given by O.P. No. 3 repudiating the claim and Ex.R.-4 is the report of the Survey Officer.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

HAVING regard to the pleadings of the parties and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the points that arise for our consideration are as follows : (1) Whether the gas cylinder supplied by O.P. No. 1 was defective and the services rendered was having any deficiency? (2) Whether the accident, in question dated 17.4.1989, occurred as a result of defect in goods i.e., the gas cylinder and negligence in the service and whether the complainant suffered loss as alleged in the complaint? (3) To what relief the complainant is entitled to? Regarding points 1 and 2 : It is not disputed that the house of the complainant was serviced with gas cylinder by O.P. No. 1 which was filled in and supplied by O.P. No. 2. It is also not disputed that O.P. No. 1-the distributor had taken a "Multi-peril L.P. Gas Dealers Policy" from the O.P. No. 3 covering the period in question as per Ex.R-1.

ADMITTEDLY the complainant was out of his house when the fire accident took place in his house. The complainant has not examined any neighbouring house-holder who actually heard the sound of the explosion and witnessed the fire accident. The complainant has with regard to the occurrence of fire accident has in his evidence stated thus : " At about 9.00 p.m. we returned home. When we went near the house we found the fire brigade and many other persons collected near my house. My neighbours told me that an explosion had taken place in my house. The fire brigade was engaged in putting off the fire. After the fire was extinguished the cylinder was brought out of the house. There was no light then inside my house. The main switch had been put off by somebody. After examining the cylinder the officer incharge of the fire brigade told me that cylinder was still leaking and the gas was coming out. A wet gunny bag was put on the cylinder after diffusing it. The doors and furniture inside the house had been burnt."

Therefore, it is clear that the complainant is not a witness as to the cause for the fire accident. As referred above, the complainant has not examined any other neighbouring house-holder in this regard.

THE complainant has examined C.W.-2 Mr. M. Sreedhar, a Fire Brigade Officer. C.W.-2, with regard to the gas cylinder as to where it was placed and how it was found when he went to the house, has stated thus : "THE gas cylinder had kept in the kitchen. It had been fitted to the gas stove. THE stove was off when we went inside. THE kitchen had only one window and it had been closed. Its glass-pane had been broken. This witness has further stated that he broke open the door and went inside the house and found the back-wall of the house of the complainant damaged. With regard to the leakage of gas in the cylinder, he has stated thus : " Our preliminary investigation revealed that it was due to the leagkage of the gas from the gas cylinder. THE knob of the gas cylinder was closed. Even then the gas was leaking. We opened the regulator and brought the cylinder out of the house. We put some wet gunny bag over the gas cylinder and allowed the gas to escape with a view to empty the cylinder."

C.W.-2, has in the cross-examination stated thus : " There was no fire in the kitchen when I entered the kitchen. The cylinder has not burst." It is clear from the evidence of C. W.-2, when he went to the house of the complainant, on receipt of information of the fire accident and when he entered into the kitchen, found that there was no fire in the kitchen. He entered into the kitchen, brought out the gas cylinder and emptied the cylinder. It is very difficult from this evidence of C.W.2, to hold that the fire accident in the house of the complainant was the result of leakage of gas from the cylinder.

The complainant has not placed any other material on record lo show that the gas cylinder was in any way defective and due to which there was leakage of gas in the gas cylinder. Through C.W.-2, has stated that when he went into the kitchen, he found gas was leaking from the cylinder. That is not the report given by hint, as per Ex.C-5.

HAVING regard to this material placed on record by the complainant, it would be very difficult to hold that the gas cylinder supplied by .P. Nos. 1 and 2, was in any way defective and the services rendered by them suffered from deficiency. We are also unable to hold, having regard to the material placed on record by the complainant, that fire accident that took place in the house of the complainant on 17-4-1989, was as a result of defect in the gas cylinder supplied by O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 and due to their negligence in service. On consideration of the material placed in record, we are constrained to hold that the complainant failed to establish the fact that the fire accident was due to any defect in the gas cylinder supplied by O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 and the fire accident was as a result of negligence in the service rendered on the part of the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2. In view of this fact, the complainant has not made out a case for any relief sought for by him and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. ORDER In the result, therefore, this complaint fails and it is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs. Complaint dismissed.