United India Insurance Company Limited vs JAGDISH RAM SHARMA

VIDE this order, two appeal, Nos. 488 of 1997 and 1051 of 1998 are being disposed of. The first appeal has been filed by the opposite party, the United India Insurance Company Limited and the other by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and others. At this stage, it may further be stated that there was another appeal which was filed by one of the opposite parties, namely Khalsa Oil Store which was dismissed as barred by time and the appeal against the aforesaid order is stated to be pending before the National Commission. While disposing of the aforesaid appeal, it was ordered that the other appeals, if any, filed by others would be decided on merits.

ALL the aforesaid appeals were filed against the order of District Forum, Ludhiana dated December 20, 1996. The District Forum had granted compensation to the complainant Jagdish Ram Sharma against the three opposite parties who have filed the appeals aforesaid. A total sum of Rs. 1 lac and costs of Rs. 2,000/- giving details of the amount of compensation, Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of kitchen articles, Rs. 10,000/- damage to the property and Rs. 70,000/- for mental pain and suffering was allowed by the District Forum. Jagdish Ram Sharma was having L.P.G. Gas Connection and thus a consumer of Hindustan Petroleum Cooking Gas vide consumer No. 506558 since June 27, 1991. The connection was taken through Khalsa Oil Store, dealer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, opposite party No. 2. United India Insurance Company was also impleaded as a party as Khalsa Oil Store had taken insurance policy. One L.P.G. Gas Cylinder No. 36330 was supplied at the residence of the complaint by the gas dealer on October 29, 1993 at about 11.00 a.m. The representative of the dealer had taken away the empty gas cylinder while making delivery of the filled gas cylinder. Bimla Devi, wife of Jagdish Ram and daughter-in-law Prem Lata, w/o Madan Lal and Kusum Lata wife of Pardeep Kumar were present in the house. They noticed leakage of gas from the cylinder supplied when the same was to be attached to the stove. They called help of their neighbourers and Ram Sarup and Khazan Singh came. They put the safety cap on the cylinder to stop the gas leakage. In this process, the fire occurred causing injuries to them and damaging the kitchen articles and the building. They were rushed to the hospital but they died. Thus, Jagdish Ram Sharma, the complainant, consumer of the gas connection, filed the complaint claiming compensation. The opposite parties filed their written statements denying their liability in the case. The Insurance Company took up the plea that the matter was not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy as the incident did not take place during the transit or in the process of installation of the refilled cylinder. The other opposite parties also took up the pleas that they were not negligent in the matter of occurrence of the fire. If the gas cylinder was leaking, automatically it could not catch fire. There was spark of some kind and the fire took place before the cylinder was connected with the stove. The District Forum holding deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite parties passed the impugned order.

The appeal filed by Hindustan Petroleum is barred by time (Appeal No. 1051 of 1998). An application of condoning delay of 537 days in filing the appeal has been filed.

TAKING up the appeal of Insurance Company, reference be made to the terms and conditions of the policy in order to find out as to whether the case as pleaded could be Covered under the policy or not. The relevant clauses which have been referred to are at page 77 back and 78 of the District Forum records which read as under : "Section VI-Public Liability and Employee''s Liability- (a) Public Liability : The Company will indemnify 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 Limited (hereinafter called the Indian Oil) with the Company''s written consent in respect of accidental death of or bodily injury to any person other than a person under the insured''s Service and/or accidental damage to property caused by or arising from the installation of gas fitted liquefied petroleum gas cylinders in the premises of the insured''s customers or whilst such cylinders from the insured''s premises are in the course of being carried for installation in the premises of the insured''s customers to the insured''s premises, not exceeding in all for the compensation and litigation expenses the limit of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) for any one accident or a series of accidents arising from any one event and for all accidents during any one period of Insurance."

Special Condition 2 (page 78) reads as under : "It is hereby warranted that the liquefied petroleum gas cylinders supplied to the Insured''s Customers are in sound and merchantable condition and are properly sealed and the valves are free from all defects and vice."

The contention of Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for the Insurance Company is that it was the duty of the dealer to supply defect-free cylinder to the customer and secondly that the Insurance Company was to indemnify such loss which had occurred during the transit of the gas cylinder from the godowns to the house of the consumer or arising from the installation of gas filled liquefied petroleum gas cylinders in the premises of the insured''s customers. Since in the present case, the damage did not occur either during the transit or in the process of installation, the liability on the Insurance Company cannot be fastened. We find merit in this contention. The contract of insurance is to be interpreted like any other contract between the parties. Since, no damage occurred on account of gas cylinder being carried from godowns to the house of the complainant, the Public Liability clause referred to above will not be attracted. The same could only further be applicable if the loss had occurred in the process of installation of the cylinder. The brief facts as stated above and also as deposed on behalf of the complainant''s witnesses make it clear that after supply of the gas cylinder at the house of the complainant, the representative of the dealer had taken away the empty cylinder, and if leakage was observed from the supplied cylinder, there was no question of installation of the same cylinder with the stove. The leakage having been noticed and help having been sought, the effort only was to stop the leakage and as per evidence, the leakage was being stopped by putting the safety cap. Furthermore by putting the safety cap, there was no question of connecting or installation of the gas cylinder with the stove. Hence, the Insurance Company, in the peculiar facts of the case as above, could not be made liable for the loss suffered.

THERE is another aspect of the matter. On merits, the District Forum was not justified in granting a sum of Rs. 70,000/- on account of pain and suffering as the complainant can not be treated as a legal heir of the two deceased who ultimately became victim of the fire which is stated to be explosion of the gas cylinder. Merely because he is a consumer as having hired services of the gas agency does not clothe him with the status of a person claiming compensation on account of the loss suffered by the two deceased referred to above who could not otherwise be treated as beneficiaries of the contract of hiring services between the complainant and the gas agency. Being neighbourers, of course, they had come to lend help in the matter of plugging leakage. Thus, without expressing any opinion as to whether their legal heirs have any right against the gas agency or in that sense against the Insurance Company in General Law, the present complaint on behalf of the Jagdish Ram Sharma for pain and suffering or tension on account of their death is not maintainable. With respect to loss of kitchen articles and damage to the property is concerned, the impugned order cannot be sustained as no finding of negligent act on the part of the opposite party can be recorded as the fire automatically did not occur as a spark was required to start fire. The gas cylinder as such, as per record, was not returned to the gas agency, and was not got tested to find out as to from which point there was leakage of gas which continued even after putting the safety cap. For the reasons stated above, the appeal filed by United India Company Limited deserves to be allowed and we so order setting aside the impugned order.

AS far as appeal of Hindustan Petroleum is concerned, though there is inordinate delay in filing the appeal and the appeal otherwise deserves to be dismissed on the ground of limitation, by taking the aid of Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, benefit of the decision in Appeal No. 488 of 1977 deserves to be given to the co-respondent Hindustan Petroleum. The impugned order shall stand set aside against Hindustan Petroleum Corporation as well. The Appeal No. 1051 of 1998 also stands disposed of as above. Ordered accordingly.