Gajendra Nayakcomplaina vs Sangrami Gas

IN this complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant has claimed compensation of Rs. 9,50,000 from the opposite parties.

THE sum and substance of the grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the negligence in supplying a defective LPG cylinder to him for which there was outbreak of fire resulting in death of her daughter and sustaining injuries by himself and other family members and loss of household properties. Briefly stated the complainants case is that he is a consumer of LPG manufactured and supplied by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (opposite party No. 2) through its dealer M/s. Sangrami Gas - opposite party No. 1. On consideration of his application for supply of LPG gas he was allotted Consumer No. 2610. He duly deposited the costs of the LPG. cylinder at the time of allotment of the consumer number. On 19.4.2001 he booked for supply of LPG cylinder to the opposite party No. 1. On the next day i.e., on 10.4.2001 a filled LPG cylinder was supplied to him on payment of its price. On 25.5.2001 at about 7.15 p.m. there was failure of power supply in his house. Therefore, all the family members were sitting in the dining room by lighting candles. Prasant Kumar Swain, a relative went to the kitchen to connect the regulator to the gas cylinder. While removing the safety cap to connect the regulator, there was leakage of gas from the cylinder. The gas spread into the kitchen room, dining room and bed -room which caught fire by the burning of candles kept in the dining room. As a result the complainant and his daughter - Diptimayee received severe burn injuries. Complainants son Sanjeeb and his brother -in -law Prasant rushed to the dining room to rescue the victims and in the process they also received burn injuries. The neighbours rushed to the spot and rescued them. All the above four persons were under treatment in the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack as well as in the Private Hospital. The condition of Diptimayee became serious and she was shifted to Kalinga Hospital, Bhubaneshwar for better treatment. She however could not survive and ultimately succumbed to the burn injuries and died on 2.6.2001. Because of supply of defective LPG cylinder, the fire broke out which has not only resulted in the loss of human life but also destroyed household properties. On the above ground the complainant claims a total sum of Rs. 9,50,000 as compensation from the opposite parties. The break up of the claim is as follows: (i) Loss of properties Rs. 2,20,000 (ii) Loss of life Rs. 3,00,000 (iii) Injuries sustained by the petitioner Rs. 1,50,000 (iv) Injuries sustained by the other family members Rs. 1,00,000 (v) Medical expenses Rs. 1,00,000 (vi) Mental agony Rs. 75,000 (vii) Litigation expenses Rs. 5,000 As per the schedule the loss of properties is as follows: (i) BPL colour T.V. Rs. 20,000 (ii) Two -in -one audio Rs. 5,000 (iii) Gold ornaments Rs. 1,00,000 (iv) Wooden furnitures Rs. 45,000 (v) Wearings clothes and sarees Rs. 20,000 (vi) Doors and windows Rs. 30,000

Neither of the opposite parties filed its written version. They however have separately filed written note of arguments. In absence of any written version by either of the opposite parties the allegations made by the petitioner in the complaint remain uncontroverted. We have however taken note of the points mentioned in the note of arguments filed by the opposite parties.

THERE is no dispute that the complainant is a consumer of LPG with Consumer No. 2610. On 10.4.2001 a filled LPG cylinder was supplied to him on payment of price by the opposite party No. 1. One Prasant Kumar Swain a close relation of the complainant was removing the safety cap of the cylinder to connect the regulator. There was leakage of gas from the cylinder which seemed to have spread into different rooms of the house. As there was power failure at that time the family members were sitting in the dining room by lighting candles. Therefore, automatically the gas caught fire, as a result, the complainants daughter Diptimayee received burn injuries. Besides her the complainant also got burn injuries on his person. Annexure E is the certificate granted by the Assistant Fire Officer, Fire Station, Cuttack which goes to establish that there was outbreak of fire in the house of the complainant due to leakage of gas. The fire brigade reached the spot and extinguished the fire vide F.R. No. 145/01 dated 25.5.2001. From the above certificate there can be no doubt that there was leakage of gas from the gas cylinder resulting in outbreak of fire. Diptimayee, daughter of the complainant sustained severe burn injuries because of fire. She ultimately succumbed to the burn injuries which is evident from her post -mortem report. The complainant also sustained burn injuries which is evident from the certificate granted by the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. He was admitted in the hospital on 25.5.2001 (date of occurrence) and was discharged from the hospital on 13.6.2001. He had sustained 30% of burn injuries. Although in the complaint, the complainant has stated that Sanjeeb Kumar Nayak and Prasant Kumar Swain also received burn injuries, in absence of any medical report we are not inclined to accept the complainants version that these two persons also sustained burn injuries. The allegation of the complainant is that the LPG cylinder which was supplied to him was defective resulting in leakage of gas which led to outbreak of fire. In absence of any specific denial by the opposite parties, we hereby hold that the LPG cylinder supplied to the petitioner on 10.4.2001 was a defective one. There is thus deficiency in service by the opposite parties.

THE next question that arises for consideration is to the extent of loss suffered by the complainant. In the complaint he has claimed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 for loss of life. As indicated above, Diptimayee died on account of burn injuries. She was first admitted in the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack on the date of occurrence (25.5.2001) and was discharged on 29.5.2001. The complainant has enclosed the discharge certificate dated 29.5.2001 from which it appears that she had sustained burn injuries to the extent of 60%. She was latter shifted to Kalinga Hospital, Bhubaneshwar where she succumbed to injuries on 2.6.2001 (vide post -mortem report). She was aged about 32 years and was married to one Pramod Kumar Ray vide the death certificate Annexure -D. There is no evidence that she was an earning member in the family. In absence of any such proof, as is granted in cases of motor vehicles accident claim cases, a sum of rupees one lakh as compensation for her death would meet the ends of justice. The claimant claims a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation for the injuries sustained by him. From the medical certificate, Annexure -B it appears that he was admitted in the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack on 25.5.2001 and was discharged on 13.6.2001. He had 30% burn injuries. At the time of discharge his condition was found to be satisfactory. Although there is no documentary evidence of his medical expenses since he was in the hospital for 19 days he must have spent some amount. In our opinion a sum of Rs. 8,000 would be a just compensation for the injuries sustained by him. The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation for the injuries sustained by other members of the family. As mentioned above, in absence of any medical certificate with regard to other members of the family we are not inclined to accept the claim made on their behalf. The complainant claims a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as medical expenses. We have already granted a sum of Rs. 8,000 in favour of the complainant for his medical expenses. Diptimayee was first admitted in the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack on 25.5.2001 and was discharged on 29.5.2001. She was later removed to Kalinga Hospital a private medical institution where she died on 2.6.2001. Since it is a private medical institute the complainant must have expended some amount towards her medical treatment. Since we have already granted a total sum of rupees one lakh for the death of Diptimayee we are not inclined to grant any amount towards her medical expenses. The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 75,000 towards mental agony. Undoubtedly he himself has suffered burn injuries and he must have gone through trauma for his own suffering as well as the loss of his daughters life. We accordingly assess a sum of Rs. 10,000 as compensation towards mental agony. So far as the loss of properties is concerned, the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 2,20,000 on six different items. In the F.I.R. lodged by the son of the complainant on 30.5.2001, it was mentioned that during the time of fire a colour T.V. two -in -one audio, gold ornaments, wooden furnitures, wearing clothes and sarees along with doors and windows were damaged whose loss would be around Rs. 1,00,000. The complainant has not indicated what were the gold ornaments which were damaged for which he claims a sum of Rs. 1,00,000. In view of the allegations made in the F.I.R., we are inclined to grant a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation for the loss of properties. The complainant is thus entitled to a total sum of Rs. 1,68,000 as compensation. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant. It shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the complaint (1.10.2003). If the amount is not paid to the complainant by 30th of December, 2005 it shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the complaint.

IN the result, the complaint is allowed with costs assessed at Rs. 2,000. Mr. Subash Mahtab, Member -I agree. Complaint allowed.