Orissa

Cuttak

CC/189/2021

Babu Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hindustan Petrolium Corporation Limited - Opp.Party(s)

A Suhail

07 Sep 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                              C.C.No.189/2021

Babu Behera,

S/O:Nilakantha Behera,

At:Dhanakothi Sahi,Puri-752001.                            ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

1.        Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited,

At:Petroleum House,17 Jamshedji Tata Road,Mumbai-400001.

 

2.       Mangalabag Police Station represented through

Inspector Incharge,AT:Mangalabag,Cuttack.

 

3.            Puri Fire Station,At:Rina Road Puri-752001.

 

4.       Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited represented by

Regional Manager,At:Saheed Nagar,

Bhubaneswsar-751007.

 

5.      Jagannath Gas,At:Dolamandap Sahi,

Temple Road,Puri-752001.

 

6.      ICICI Lombard General Insurance,

At:ICICI Lombard House,414,Veer Savarkar Marg,

Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple,Prabhadevi,Mumbai-400025.

 

7.      ICICI Lombard General Insurance,

3^rd Floor Anuj Building,

Plot No.29,Satya Nagar,Bhubaneswar-751007....Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    08.11.2021

Date of Order:  07.09.2022

 

For the complainant:                Mr. A.Suhail,Advocate.

For the O.P No.1 & 4 :               Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No. 2 & 3:                    None.

For the O.P No.5:                      Mr. R.N.Mishra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.6 & 7:               Mr. R.Pati,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                                 

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition bereft unnecessary details in short is that on 14.11.20 Rina Behera the wife of the complainant and their son had suffered serious burn injuries due to the blast of the gas cylinder.  They were immediately shifted to the SCB Medical College and Hospital for better treatment but on 15.11.20 Rina Behera had succumbed to her injuries for which one U.D.Case U/S-174 of Cr.P.C. was registered at Manguli Police Station bearing P.S.Case No.1965 in the year 2020 alongwith G.R.Case no.2263/2020.  The Asst. Fire Officer,Puri had submitted a report bearing no.111/2020 specifying that the accident of fire was because of leakage in the gas cylinder.  When the complainant claimed the insurance as per the Public Liability  Insurance Policy,  no action was initiated for which the complainant has filed this case against all the O.Ps seeking direction  therein from this Commission against O.Ps no.1,4 & 5 in order to pay the petitioner the insurance amount of Rs.6,00,000/- towards the death of his wife Rina Behera together with an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the medical expenses as incurred by the complainant for treating his son, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the damage as caused to the brother of the complainant and also for any other relief.  The complainant has also sought for direction against the O.Ps No.1,4 & 5 claiming compensation from them to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- towards his mental agony, sufferings and harassment and further a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- due to the delay in providing him the benefit.  He has also claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the O.Ps towards his litigation expenses and has prayed for any other relief as deemed fit and proper.

            The complainant has filed copies of a series of documents in order to prove his case.

2.         Out of the seven O.Ps as arrayed in this case, O.Ps no.2 & 3 having not contested this case have been set exparte.  However, out of the contesting O.Ps, O.P No.1 & 4 have conjointly filed their written version, O.P No.5 has filed his separate written statement and O.Ps no.6 &7 have also filed their written version conjointly.  From the written version of O.Ps 1 & 4, it is noticed that both of them have stated that the complaint petition is not maintainable, there was no deficiency in service and they had not practised any unfair trade.  They have also alleged that this Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction in order to adjudicate the case since because the complainant had not resided within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and the cause of action for filing this case was not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission for which they have also prayed to dismiss the complaint petition.  They have urged in their written version that the complainant has failed to provide any cogent evidence that the alleged incident had occurred due to the explosion of the gas cylinder thereby resulting in loss of life of Rina Behera.  According to them, the complainant is a consumer under “Prime Minister Ujjwala Yojna” bearing consumer no.611816 issued by the O.P/dealer “M/s. Jagannath Gas” of Puri.  They have disputed the report of the Fire Officer who has stated in his report that due to leakage of gas from the gas cylinder, the fire accident had taken place.  According to them, the complainant had never produced her complaint about the leakage of the gas from the alleged gas cylinder.  Thus, they have ultimately prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant. 

The O.Ps No.1 & 4 have also filed copies of documents to establish their stand.

O.P No.5 through his written version has stated that the case of the complainant is not maintainable, barred by law of limitation which is liable to be dismissed.  O.P No.5 in his written statement has also reiterated about the jurisdiction of the case to be at Puri only.  According to O.P No.5 there was no FIR lodged at the town police station of Puri regarding the alleged incident on 14.11.20.  Thus O.P no.5 has also prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

The O.Ps no.6 & 7 in their written version have stated that there was no cause of action for the present case and the case is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed.  Both of them have also questioned the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission since because the incident taken place at Puri.  They are admitting about the insurance policy issued in favour of the O.P No.1 bearing policy no.4008/199122230/00/000 which was valid from 1.4.20 till the midnight of 31.3.21 subject to certain terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.  As per the terms and conditions of the said policy, Insurance company(O.P No.1) should inform immediately to them enabling the timely enquiry with regards to cause of the death or damage through one surveyor in order to access the loss thereby.  Accordingly, when they received the intimation from O.P No.1, one Sunil Singh the Surveyor was deputed for the said purpose and the said Surveyor through his mail dt.12.10.21 had required certain documents but neither O.P No.4 nor O.P No.5 had provided those documents in order to facilitate the insurance further.  Thus, both of them had prayed that they were not liable as they had not caused any deficiency in service.

 Both of them have filed copies of several documents in order to establish their case.

3.         Keeping in mind, the averments as made in the complaint petition and contentions of written versions as filed by the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

            i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

 

Issue no.i.

            Issue no.i being the most pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

            The contesting O.Ps have raised the point of territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and have urged through their written versions that this Commission lacks jurisdiction in order to decide this case since because the incident had taken place at Puri where the complainant and the deceased were residing.  Thus according to them, the cause of action arose at Puri only and by filing this case here at Cuttack, this Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction to be tried here.  Keeping this contention of the O.Ps in mind and while going through the provisions of the C.P.Act,2019, it would be worthwhile to quote the provisions of Sec-34(c) of the said Act which envisages that this Commission has jurisdiction in the district of Cuttack and can entertain the complaint if cause of action wholly or in part arises within this territorial jurisdiction of Cuttack district.  Here in the present case, the wife of the complainant namely Rina Behera having been injured due to the fire accident, was shifted and was being treated at the S.C.B.Medical College and Hospital at Cuttack where she had succumbed to the injuries and for this incident, there was one U.D.Case filed at Mangalabag police station of Cuttack.  This fact of the complaint petition has not been disputed by any of the O.Ps.  Thus, the cause of action ofcourse partly arose here at Cuttack when the wife of the complainant succumbed to her injuries at the S.C.B.Medical College and Hospital at Cuttack while she was being treated for her burn injuries which she had sustained at her house at Puri.  Thus, it can be said here that infact this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition as filed and by filing this case, the case of the complainant is undoubtedly maintainable.

Issue no.ii.

            It is not in dispute that there was fire accident from the gas cylinder at the house of the complainant at Puri for which the wife and son of the complainant sustained burn injuries and were being treated.  It is also not in dispute that ultimately, the wife of the complainant had succumbed to her injuries.  While going through the written versions of the O.Ps 6 & 7, it is noticed that since because they could not get the certain documents and data, they could not proceed further in dispensing the insurance money to the victims.  As per the written version of O.Ps no.6 & 7, it was O.P No.1 who was the insured and they had given intimation to O.Ps no.6 & 7 as regards to the fire accident but they had failed to meet the subsequent queries of O.Ps no.6 & 7 for which O.Ps no.6 & 7 could not depute any Surveyor to assess the loss as caused due to the fire accident.  O.P No.5 has disputed, the report of the Asst. Fire Officer,Puri, but since because the Asst. Fire Officer,Puri is a Govt. servant and one competent person to opine about the cause of the fire which he had reflected in his report, disputing the same without placing any other valid contention to the contrary does not hold good.  Thus, this Commission is of a opinion that the fire accident on the relevant date at the house of the complainant was due to the leakage of gas from the gas cylinder as per the report of the Asst. Fire Officer,Puri(O.P. No.3).  When there was a fire accident and when the complainant had claimed the insurance, the same being not disbursed promptly towards the irreparable loss as sustained by the complainant who had thereby lost his wife Rina Behera due to the fire accident and had also got his son injured for which he had to treat them both at the hospitals there at Puri and even at the S.C.B.Medical College and Hospital at Cuttack.  Thus, this Commission comes to a definite conclusion that infact O.Ps no.1,4,5,6 & 7 were deficient  in their service by neglecting and remaining callous towards the initiation of the claim as made by the complainant.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the complainant.

Issue no.iii.

            The complainant is thus entitled to the reliefs.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                        ORDER

            The case is decreed on contest against O.Ps no.1,4,5,6 & 7 and exparte against O.Ps no,.2 & 3.  The O.Ps no.1,4,5,6 & 7 are found jointly and severally liable here in this case.  These O.Ps No.1,4,5,6 & 7 are thus directed to pay the insurance amount of Rs.6,00,000/- towards the death of Rina Behera wife of the complainant, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the treatment of the injured persons together with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 15.11.20 till the total amount is quantified to the complainant within a month of getting this order.  These O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant towards the mental agony and harassment as caused to him and also to bear a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the litigation expenses of the complainant.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

            Order pronounced in the open Court on this the 7^th day of September,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                            

 

   Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                              President

 

                                                                                   

                                                                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                              Member.