SENIOR AREA MANAGER, INDANE AREA OFFICE vs S. SUBBARAYUDU

OPPOSITE parties 2 and 3 are the appellants in FA No. 471/2000 and opposite party No. 4 is the appellant in FA No. 472/2000. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Kurnool in O.P. No. 183/1997 dated 5.8.1999, the present appeals have been filed.

THE factual matrix leading to the filing of these appeals are set out hereunder: The complainant is a consumer of opposite parties 1 to 3 and opposite party No. 4 is the insurer of opposite party No. 1. On 2.4.1996 at about 5.00 a.m. the gas cylinder supplied by opposite party No. 1 suddenly exploded getting ablaze entire house, destroying several articles like Mixie, T.V., new clothes resulting in heavy damage to the property and causing injury to the family members of the complainant. As the claim of the complainant was not settled by the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the complaint.

Opposite party No. 4, filed its written version which was adopted by opposite parties 1 to 3 by means of a memo. It is primarily stated that the complainant is not an insurer covered by the policy while the first opposite party is only insured with opposite party No. 4. It is further stated that there is no direct connection or privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party No. 4. As per the policy the insured and its customer should follow all the standard procedure prescribed for safety measures in the supply and usage of LPG cylinders. It is further stated that the opposite parties 1 to 3 will supply or instal the cylinder and regulator and if any accident arises due to these installations i.e., the cylinder and regulator, the policy cover the liability of opposite party No. 1. As per the report of the Surveyor of Oriental Insurance Company, who inspected the scene of accident along with the officials of Indian Oil Corporation, it has been found that the accident took place due to leakage of gas from rubber tube and because of spark from the refrigerator which was kept in the kitchen. In short each of the opposite parties blame the other one and finally opposite party No. 4 repudiated the claim.

BASED on the affidavits and the documents filed, the District Forum found that the 4th opposite party, Insurance Company, was not justified in repudiating the claim and directed the opposite parties 2 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant. The claim against opposite party No. 1 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the appellants preferred the present appeals.

MR. R. Raghunandan, the learned Counsel appearing for appellants/opposite parties 2 and 3 in F.A. No. 471/2000 contend that the appellants do not manufacture either cylinders or the regulators and the same are purchased by Indian Oil Corporation. Whereas MR. Alluri Krishnam Raju, the learned Counsel appearing for appellant/opposite party No. 4 in F.A. No. 472/2000 submits that the insured and its customer should follow the standard procedure prescribed in supply and usage of LPG cylinders and in the eventuality the damage is caused despite complying the standard procedures, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount under the policy. He further submits that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Insurance Company and justifies the repudiation of the claim. The District Forum has conducted a detailed inquiry and found that the appellants/opposite parties tried to avoid the liability merely by throwing and shifting the liability on each other thereby disowning the liability. We have gone through the record and we are of the opinion that the cylinder supplied by opposite party No. 1, M/s. Srisaila Gas Service was defective which was manufactured and marketed by appellants/opposite parties 2 and 3 in F.A. No. 471/2000 and was insured with opposite party No. 4. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents that have been filed, we hold that the accident in question took place due to the inherent defect in the cylinder supplied. The conduct of opposite party No. 1 i.e., M/s. Srisaila Gas Service in addressing appellant/opposite party No. 4 in F.A. 472/2000 to indemnify and make good the loss shows that there is no negligence on the part of opposite party No. 1. Hence the District Forum has rightly held that appellants are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the respondent/complainant. The District Forum went into details and followed the judgment reported in AIR 1979 (SC) II Page 1863, at 1866 wherein it was held that there is no justification for the Insurance Company to repudiate the claim in a routine fashion. The District Forum has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the value of the goods lost and we do not see any ground to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum. The appeals, therefore, fail and they are accordingly dismissed. Time for compliance six weeks. Appeals dismissed.