Haryana

StateCommission

A/46/2018

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANJU AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

RAMAN SHARMA

29 Aug 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.955 of 2016

Date of Institution:10.10.2016

                                                          Date of Decision: 29.08.2018

 

United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional office SCO No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its  Deputy Manager (Consumer), Chandigarh.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      Smt. Manju widow

2.      Sushant

3.      Kartik minor Sons of Suresh Kumar,

4.      Sadhu Ram,

5.      Smt. Ram Pyari W/o Sh.Sadhu Ram, Caste Harijan Chamar, All residents of Village Patikara,Tehsil Narnaul, minors represented through Smt.Manju mother of minors.

6.      Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Through Managing Director, Office 4 and 6, Karimbhai Road, Post Box No.699, Ballard Estate, Mumbai.

7.      M/s Krishna Gas Agency (Bharat Gas) near Talab Bahadur Singh, Narnaul through proprietor/Manager, M/s Krishna Gas Agency, Narnaul, Distt. Mahendergarh.

…..Respondents

Appeal No.503 of 2017

Date of institution:- 24.04.2017

Date of Decision:- 29.08.2018

1.      Smt. Manju widow of Suresh  Kumar

2.      Sushant minor son of Suresh  Kumar

3.      Kartik minor Son of Suresh Kumar,

4.      Sadhu Ram,

5.      Smt. Ram Pyari W/o Sh.Sadhu Ram, Caste Harijan Chamar, All residents of Village Patikara,Tehsil Narnaul, Appellant No.2 and 3 are minors and represented through their mother and guardian Smt.Manju appellant No.1.

Versus

1.      Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Through Managing Director, Office 4 and 6, Karimbhai Road, Post Box No.699, Ballard Estate, Mumbai.

2.      M/s Krishna Gas Agency (Bharat Gas) near Talab Bahadur Singh, Narnaul through proprietor/Manager, M/s Krishna Gas Agency, Narnaul, Distt. Mahendergarh.

3.      United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Manager, Divisional Office NO.17, 226, Kannada Building, Ist Floor, Dr. D.N.road, Fort Mumbai.

…..Respondents

 

Appeal No.46 of 2018

Date of institution:- 12.01.2018

Date of Decision:- 29.08.2018

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 4 & 6 Karimbhai Road, Post Box No.699, Ballard Estate, Mumbai through its constituted attorney and territory Manager (LPG), Rewari.

…Appellant

Versus

1.      Smt. Manju widow

2.      Sushant

3.      Kartik minor (both minor sons of Suresh Kumar represented through their mother and natural guardian Smt. Manju),

4.      Sadhu Ram,

5.      Smt. Ram Pyari W/o Sh.Sadhu Ram, Caste Harijan Chamar, All residents of Village Patikara,Tehsil Narnaul, Haryana.

6.      M/s Krishna Gas Agency (Bharat Gas) near Talab Bahadur Singh, Narnaul through proprietor/Manager, M/s Krishna Gas Agency, Narnaul, Distt. Mahendergarh.

7.      United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, SCO No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Deputy Manager (Consumer), Chandigarh.

…Respondents

 

 

 

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Presiding Judicial  Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.V.Ramswaroop, Advocate counsel for appellant in appeal No.955 of 2016 and respondent No.3 in appeal No.503 of 2017 and respondent No.7 in appeal No.46 of 2018.

          Mr.Dhruv Sihag, Advocate counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 in appeal No.955 of 2016 and appellants in appeal No.503 of 2017 and respondent Nos.1 to 5 in appeal No.46 of 2018.

          Mr.Tarun Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.6 in appeal No.955 of 2016 and respondent No.1 in appeal No.503 of 2017 and appellant in appeal No.46 of 2018.

          Mr.Pardeep Solath, Advocate for respondent No.7 in appeal No.955 of 2016 and respondent No.3 in appeal No.503 of 2017 and respondent No.7 in appeal No.46 of 2018.

 

                                                 ORDER

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

Vide this common order above mentioned three appeals bearing No.955 of 2016, 503 of 2017  and 46 of 2018 will be disposed of as complainant, opposite party No.2 and O.P.No.3 have been preferred against the order dated 12.07.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (in short ‘District Forum’).

2.      Delay of 53 days in filing appeal No.955 of 2016 and delay of 317 days in filing appeal No.503 of 2017 and delay of153 days in filing appeal No.46 of 2018 are condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay.

3.      It was alleged by the complainant that deceased Suresh Kumar Qobtained gas connection from opposite party (O.P.) No.1 through O.P.No.2 after completing all formalities.  On 06.02.2014 gas stove and cylinder suddenly caught fire due to leakage and when deceased Suresh Kumar tried to prevent fire he became unconscious on account of inhailing of LPG.  Suresh Kumar was taken to Civil Hospital, Narnaul, where the doctors declared him dead due to impact of gas.  Post mortem was conducted.  DDR No.16 dated 06.02.2014 was lodged in police station City Narnaul. The complainant applied for claim with the O.Ps. but the same was declared. Thus there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

4.      O.Ps. alleged in the reply that deceased Suresh kumar had obtained refill cylinder on 19.12.2013 in perfect condition and he used the cylinder upto 05.02.2014 continuously. LPG gas was not poisonous and as per post-mortem report, there was no burn injury, no mark on outer part of body.  Deceased Suresh Kumar did not die due to LPG gas. No information was given to them about the incident.  O.P.No.1 was insured from O.P.No.3 for the period from 02.05.2013 to 01.05.2014 and if any liability was fixed, the same shall be discharged by the insurance company.  Thus there was no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No.1.

5.       O.P.No.2 in its reply has taken almost the same stand as taken by O.P.No.1.  He was not entitled for compensation as they have filed false complaint to grab money.  Deceased Suresh Kumar did not die on account of inhailing of LPG.  No intimation was received to the alleged incident.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2.

6.      O.P.No.3 in its reply submitted that the story about lodging of DDR was false and denied that Deceased Suresh Kumar was died due to inhaling of LPG gas.      As per terms and conditions of the policy when no claim has been moved through BPCL, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay claim. Thus there was no deficiency in service on its part.  Preliminary Objections about jurisdiction, locus standi, concealed true and material facts, etc. were raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

5.      After hearing both the parties the learned District forum allowed the complaint and ordered as under:-

“1.     To pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) to the complainants alongwith interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization.

2.      To pay Rs.5500/- as litigation charges to the complainants.

Note:Complainant No.1 Smt. Manju is entitled to 50% of the awarded amount and 30% amount will be kept in fixed deposit in the names of complainants No.2 and 3 minor sons in equal shares through their mother. The remaining 20% of the awarded amount will be paid in cash to the complainant No.4 and 5 the parents of deceased, in equal shares.”

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant, opposite party No.2 and O.P.No.3 have preferred above-said appeals as mentioned above.        Complainant has alleged that compensation is on the lower side and it should be enhanced as prayed by him in the appeal. Whereas O.P. No.1 and 3 have alleged that he was not entitled for any compensation and the complaint be dismissed.

7.      This argument have been advanced by Sh.V.Ramswaroop, the learned counsel for the appellant in appeal No.955 of 2016 and respondent No.3 in appeal No.503 of 2017 and respondent No.7 in appeal No.46 of 2018 as well as         Mr.Dhruv Sihag, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 in appeal No.955 of 2016 and appellants in appeal No.503 of 2017 and respondent Nos.1 to 5 in appeal No.46 of 2018 and Mr.Tarun Sharma the learned counsel for respondent No.6 in appeal No.955 of 2016 and respondent No.1 in appeal No.503 of 2017 and appellant in appeal No.46 of 2018 and  Mr.Pardeep Solath, Advocate for respondent No.7 in appeal No.955 of 2016 and respondent No.3 in appeal No.503 of 2017 and respondent No.7 in appeal No.46 of 2018. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Forum including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

8.      Basically, while  unfolding the arguments, it has been argued by Sh.V.Ramswaroop, the Senior learned counsel for the appellant in appeal No.955 of 2016 that as far as the facts of the present case are not in dispute.  It is also correct that gas connection was issued on  19.12.2013 by O.P.No.2 i.e. M/s Krishna Gas Agency (Bharat Gas). The O.P.No.1 in the original complaint is a Bharat Petroleum Corporation, who further allots the agencies to the respective dealers and in the present case  O.P.No.2 is the dealer, who had issued the gas connection to the complainant’s family on 24.07.2011 and this incident was taken place on 06.02.2014. DDR was recorded but no intimation was given to the insurer as O.P.Nos.1 and 2 were insured with O.P.No.3 and in any case, if award is passed either by District Forum or by State Commission,  it is to be indemnified by the appellant-United India Insurance Company (hereinafter referred as “O.P.No.3”) in the original complaint.  It is quite suffice to say that when any cogent and convincing evidence placed on record by complainant and the learned District Forum has awarded a compensation of Rs.Five lacs alongwith interest @ 10% per annum and litigation charges has also been allowed. For the purpose of awarding the compensation or accepting the complaint there has to be some cogent evidence and even without intimating the insurer, the award has been passed. The insurer only came to know about the incident after receiving the summons of filing the complaint by complainant and before receiving summons, there was no intimation about the incident.  Insurer could have deputed some surveyor or investigator to inspect and then the surveyor submit the report.  In absence of any cogent evidence and also on the basis of the scientific findings that the cause of death was due to coronary artery disease and not inhaling the gas/poisonous substance was found by the forensic and scientific laboratory and unless and until there is a evidence that ultimately it was due to the occurrence taken place on 06.02.2014, the death had occurred, there is no liability for the insurer to indemnify the award or to make the payment of the interest and in any eventuality, the order passed by the learned District Forum, Narnaul is illegal  and has not considered the actual facts and as such, the order is liable to be set aside for all intents and purposes.

9.      Similarly, it has been argued by respondent No.6 Mr. Tarun Sharma-Bharat Petroleum and Mr.Pardeep Solath, on behalf of Dealer namely M/s Krishna Gas Agency (Bharat Gas), they have also raised the similar pleas that when both the O.ps. had not been informed, how could they know about the occurrence and it is also the admitted fact that though it is a case of leakage of gas from the cylinder. There is no fire injury caused to the deceased.  If the death was caused after suffering the fire injuries, the circumstances could have been different.  In the present case, admittedly the death has been caused due to coronary artery disease and not by administering the poisonous substance. They are also under no obligation to indemnify the award or no liability could be fastened against them and as such, the award passed by the learned District Forum is liable to be set aside and original complaint deserves for its dismissal.

10.    When the arguments were advanced by Sh. Dhruv Sihag, the learned counsel for the appellants in appeal No.503 of 2017 who are infact the complainants before the learned Distict Forum had vehemently argued that as far as issuing the gas connection is concerned it is not in dispute.  It is also not in dispute that since there was a leakage of gas in the cylinder, when the deceased has taken the burning cylinder, so, there was a possibility of causing the serious causalities.  It was taken up to 50-60 square yards.  He did not suffer any injury, but, it was direct nexus in inhaling the gas, though it was not poisonous but keeping in view the circumstances, it is only heavy impact of the LPG gas and due to inhaling the gas the deceased has taken last breath. Even If there is no expert opinion or the cause of death has been mentioned something else still the death is related only to the occurrence and there are no other circumstances which could lead to any other result for describing the death of the deceased and finally it was prayed  that the award has rightly been awarded as per the amount mentioned in the insurance policy, in which the amount is prescribed for different events.

11.    It has further been argued as far as the intimation is given to the O.Ps. concerned that Mahendergarh is a small place and there was hue and cry after the occurrence and the death was taken place. It was published almost in all the leading newspapers, which are Annexure 12 to 17, in this regard a DDR Annexure C-11 was also registered on the same day.  The death certificate is Ex.6, as such, there is no illegality caused or committed by the learned District Forum while accepting the complaint and awarding the amount of compensation and infact the appeal of the complainant may be accepted for enhancing the award of compensation. Finally it was prayed that the cross appeal No.955 of 2016 and 46 of 2018 may be dismissed and his cross appeal No.503 of 2017 may be allowed and the amount of the compensation may be enhanced.

12.    In view of the above submission and the careful perusal of the appellate record as well as original record of the learned District Forum, it is true that on 24.07.2011, a gas connection was released in the name of the family of the complainant by O.P.No.2-M/s Krishna Gas Agency immediately, after a period of two and a half years above, all of sudden there was leakage of gas out of the gas cylinder and ultimately, a fire was broken out, in order to save the entire family, the deceased Suresh Kumar had lifted the gas cylinder and it was thrown away at a considerable distance. Due to the heavy impact and leakage of gas, the possibility of causing death of the deceased cannot be ruled out.  It is the case of the O.Ps. that since as per the post-mortem report, the death of the deceased due to coronary artery disease. 

13.    Now the question arises that there was a direct nexus of inhaling leakage of gas pipe by the deceased while he was carrying cylinder, though it was not poisonous?  It is also a case of the O.ps. that since the gas is not poisonous, the death cannot be taken place by inhaling the gas, it was due to coronary artery disease. In order to derive a right conclusion, the facts and circumstances in which, occurrence was taken place or the circumstances surrounded by the deceased are equally to be appreciated. In the given facts and circumstances, since there was heavy impact and the deceased was under a strong pressure or duress to save his family members, the possibility of the death of deceased Suresh Kumar cannot be ruled out. Even otherwise also the  deceased was young hale and hearty. There was no evidence led on behalf of the either of the party that he was suffering from heart disease.  It is also true that the family of the complainant is a rustic family belonging to village and they are hardly educated.  It is quite possible that due to the lack of knowledge or ill education, the intimation was not given to the opposite parties concerned, but, at the same time since the occurrence was published in the leading newspapers, it cannot be presumed that the occurrence was not in the knowledge of the O.Ps. may be the gas agency i.e. M/s Krishna Gas Agency and Bharat Petroleum or the insurer.  In such  circumstances, it becomes the duty of the O.Ps. to visit the site and then to analyze the circumstances which has led into causing the occurrence but they have made no efforts to ascertain the actual facts and circumstances which has led into causing the fire due to leakage of gas in the gas cylinder. However to the best of the knowledge or by taking every pre-caution a DDR Ex.C-11 was registered at Police Station  P.S.City, Narnaul. The insurance policy is Ex.R1/B, which contains terms and conditions for making payment of compensation.

14.    Hence in the considered opinion of this Commission, the learned District Forum had not committed any grave error or any fault could be found in the order passed by the learned District Forum. Hence with above observation and discussion, the order of the learned District Forum does not warrant any interference and accordingly it stands maintained for all intents and purposes and as a consequence thereof, all the three appeals stands dismissed.

15.    This order has been rendered in appeal No. 955 of 2016 titled as  United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.Smt. Manju and others, which has been dismissed.  The other connected appeal bearing No.503 of 2017 titled as Smt. Manju and others Vs.Bharat Petroleum and appeal bearing No.46 of 2018 titled as Bharat Petroleum corporation ltd. Vs. Smt. Manju and others had also been dismissed by this common order. Hence copy of this order be also placed in the connected appeal Nos.503 of 2017 and46 of 2018.

16.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- each deposited at the time of filing of the present appeal  bearing No.955 of 2016 and F.A. No.46 of 2018 be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and due verification.

         

August 28th, 2018                                   Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                                                 Judicial Member                                                                              Addl.Bench                 

S.K.