PRADEEP KR.SHARMA vs HOWRAH GAS SERVICE

THESE two appeals are taken up together for the sake of convenience as they arise out of the same judgment and parties are the same. The facts of the case are also similar.

THE petitioners are Shri Pradeep Kr. Sharma and Smt. Rekha Sharma. THEy approached the Forum claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the ground of sustaining serious burn injuries on the body of petitioner No. 2. THEir case in short is that petitioner No. 1 is a consumer for Indane Gas. On 15.1.1998 at about 10 a.m. petitioner No. 2 ignited the gas stove after proper connection when suddenly gas cylinder started leaking and flame begun to come out and she caught fire and in consequence she suffered serious burn injury. O.P. No. 1 tried to extinguish the fire but he also sustain minor injury. Petitioner No. 2 was admitted in a Nursing Home where she was treated. On that very day petitioner No. 1 informed O.P. No. 1 for taking back the cylinder. According to the petitioner the cylinder was defective as much as "O" ring was not present. THE emergency cell of the distributor did not come forward though it was admitted that the cylinder was defective. Accordingly the petitioners have brought this action claiming compensation for mental agony and monetary loss. O.P. No. 1 has filed a written statement wherein it has been stated that on 10.1.1998 a defect-free cylinder was supplied to the petitioner which has been tested by the petitioner. On receipt of complaint on 15.1.1998 a mechanic rushed to spot and noticed two separate LPG cylinders along with two ovens placed side by side on the floor in a narrow space about 4 feet width of verandah. He however could not notice any burn spot on the wall or on the floor or surrounding place. The affected cylinder which was partially filled with pressure regulator was brought back. On inquiry it transpired that there are as many as three connections in the said premises. According to it in case of leakage of gas due to missing of "O" ring profuse leakage of LP Gas results with a continuous hissing sound. Moreover in case of leakage its smell is detected in air. They deny any knowledge as to how the accident occurred. O.P. No. 2 has also filed a written statement supporting the case of the O.P. No. 1. According to it the incident might has occurred due to careless use of the tube.

The Forum found that the "O" ring of the cylinder was found missing when the representative of O.P. No. 1 visited the spot on being informed about the accident. The representative who had taken away the half filled cylinder has granted a receipt therefor wherefrom it appeared that "O" ring was missing. During hearing the said cylinder was brought before the Forum and the Forum noticed that the "O" ring was intact. The Forum observed that the cylinder has come from the custody of O.P. No. 1 and "O" ring must have been replaced while the cylinder remained in their custody. The Forum observed further that O.P. No. 1 tried to cover up their fault. It is not known what exactly was the reason for this accident. Anyway the fact remains that in fact the accident had occurred and O.P. No. 2 sustained burn injuries on her person. According to the petitioner the accident was sequel to the missing of "O" ring from the cylinder and so O.P. No. 1 cannot escape the liability. In that view of the matter the Forum awarded a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- only in consideration of the fact that there was contributory negligence on the part of the petitioners. It was noticed that there are as many as three cylinders and they were placed in a row one after another. The petitioners did not observe the safety measure as was required. The kitchen room is in a portion of the verandah which is only 7''x3''. The ovens were not placed on a platform at least 18" high above the floor. Luckily for the petitioner no serious accident had occurred. The cylinders as well as the ovens were placed side by side in a small kitchen. The ovens were placed on the floor ignoring the safety measure. Accordingly the Forum awarded compensation for a lesser amount because of contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that there was no hissing sound from the cylinder nor any pungent smell came out when the cylinder was open and as such it cannot be definitely said that the accident occurred because of absence of "O" ring from the cylinder. The petitioners have submitted paper to show that a huge sum of Rs. 74,157/- was spent towards the treatment of petitioner No. 2. As noticed earlier the petitioners were saved by the providence and serious disaster would have occurred. Considering, therefore, all the circumstances, we think that the award of compensation of Rs. 20,000/- is just and adequate. So we do not like to vary it. The appeals fail and are dismissed. This judgment will govern both the appeals. Appeals dismissed.