MUNIRAJ vs Anmol Bharath Gas Distributors

THE complainant in Complaint No. 14009/2003 is the mother who obtained the LPG gas connection to his house.

O .P. 1 is the distributor of the LPG Gas and O.P. 3 is the manufacturer of LPG gas. O.P. 2 is the Insurance Company. The case of the complainant is that the wife of the above said complainant Mrs. Hemalatha on 22.5.2003 at about 8.00 a.m. in the morning tried to lit the gas stove. At that time, there was an explosion due to the leakage of gas from the cylinder. Consequently, said Hemalatha died due to the burn injuries in the hospital. The husband of the complainant and his son were also suffered burn injuries when they made an attempt to save Smt. Hemalatha. This has made the complainant to file a complaint before the DF alleging deficiency in service as against O.Ps. 1 and 3.

O .Ps. 1 and 3 before the DF filed the version disputing their liability. The Insurance Company also filed its version stating that the risk is not covered under the policy, and, therefore, there is no liability on the part of the Insurance Company to indemnify the loss if any suffered by the complainants.

AFTER considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the DF on assessment of the evidence has recorded the specific finding that there is deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. 1 and 3 and allowed the complaint granting compensation in favour of the complainants. So far as the Insurance Company is concerned, the DF has not fixed any liability on it though the policy was produced before the DF. The impugned order of the DF is now challenged by the parties in these appeals.

THE case of the complainants is that as there was a leakage of gas from the cylinder through the regulator and the tube, there was an explosion of fire when Smt. Hemalatha made an attempt to lit the gas stove. The fact of the accident was reported to the police and also O.Ps. 1 and 3. Whenever a complaint alleging the leakage of gas from the cylinder was brought to the notice of O.P. 1 and O.P. 3, they are required to get the report of the LRC on examination of the tube, regulator and the cylinder.

IN the instant case, the police have taken away the cylinder. The tube and the regulator was taken by O.P. 1 for the purpose of getting the LRC report. The LRC report has not been produced before the DF. The tube and the regulator taken by O.P. 1 were also not produced before the DF. In the absence of production of such report and the regulator, the only inference that could be drawn is that the fire accident is due to the leakage of gas from the cylinder through the regulator. No doubt, opposite party No. 1 has produced the letter said to have been written by Territorial Manager. But this letter is not a report so as to speak to the fact of examination of the tube and the regulator. Therefore, in our view, the DF is justified in allowing the complaints of the complainants.

THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/complainants submits that Appeal Nos. 555, 556 and 557 of 2004 have filed seeking for enhancement of compensation. After hearing for some time, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants do not press the above said appeals.

THE learned Counsel appearing for the O.Ps. submitted that as the O.P. had obtained the policy covering the risk, the District Forum ought to have directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the quantum of compensation payable to the complainants. The copy of the insurance policy has been produced before the DF. The policy covers the public liability also. The assured sum under the policy is Rs. 5,00,000. The learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that if any loss or damage caused in the premises where the cylinder and gas stove are installed, the same is not covered under the policy. Section VI provides for Public Liability and the Employers Liability which reads as follows : (a) Public Liability : The Company will indemnnify the insured in respect of all sums which the insured in respect of all sums which the insured is legally liable to pay as compensation and litigation expenses incurred by the insured or by the Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter called as Indian Oil) with the Companys written consent in respect of accidental death or bodily injury to any person other than a person under the insureds service and/or accidental damage to property caused by or arising from installation of gas filled liquefied petroleum gas cylinder in the premises of the insureds customers or whilst such cylinders from the insureds premises are in the course of being carried for installation in the premises of the insureds customers or whilst such empty cylinders are in the course of being carried from the premises of the insureds customers to the insureds premises, not exceeding in all for the compensation and litigation expenses the limit of Rs. 10,00,000 for any one accident or a series of accidents arising from any one event and Rs. 40,00,000 for all accidents during one period of insurance. (b) Employers Liability : The company will indemnify the insured in respect of all sums which the insured is legally liable to pay as compensation to his workmen under the Fatal Accident Act, 1855. Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 or any amendment thereto or Common Law in respect of death or bodily injury to such workmen arising out of and in the course of employment.

A reading of the above said clause, we are of the view that any loss or damage caused by or arising from installation of gas filled liquefied petroleum is covered under the policy.

LEARNED Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted ''arising from installation'' should be read as ''at the time of installation''. The dictionary meaning for the word ''instal'' is to put something in position and ready to use. ''Installation'' is a noun. That means once the cylinder and the stove is installed then it becomes installation. Any loss or damage caused arising out of the said installation due to the leakage of gas from the installation is covered under the policy and, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainants. The total sum awarded in favour of the complainants does not exceed Rs. 5,00,000. If that is so, the O.Ps. are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount to the complainants. In the result, we pass the following: ORDER All the O.Ps. are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount as directed by the DF in the impugned order. From out of the total compensation, Rs. 2,00,000 to be deposited in the name of the minor Baby Kushal in any of the Nationalized Bank till he attains majority. However, the father of minor complainant is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued on the said deposit for the purpose of maintenance and education of the minor son. The Oriental Insurance Company is directed to pay the amount as ordered above within two months from today. Appeals disposed of.