Complaint Nos. 34 of 1993,Complaint Nos. 288 of 1993

4th November, 1997

JUDGMENT

A. A. HALBE, J. :- These are the complaints which have been filed by the sons and daughter for their deceased parents Anant Subhash Rane and Sunita Anant Rane and also by the injured Vaishali Rane for the death of the parents caused on account of gas leakage on 21-12-1991. The said gas cylinder was supplied by opposite party No.1 and was covered under insurance by opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. It is seen from the record the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. is also made party under the orders of the Commission.

2. The few facts of the fatal incident are that the gas connection was in the name of the deceased Anant Subhash Rane being connection No. L-181, registered with opposite party No.1. It was the domestic gas connection given to Rane on 16-3-1981 and it will have to be borne in mind that it was a single bottle connection meaning thereby that the deceased was entitled to only one gas cylinder. On 21-12-1991, the gas cylinder was brought by the daughter of the deceased in their house room No.5, Patil Cottage No.2, Neelam Nagar, Gavan pada, Mulund, Mumbai - 400 081. On 22-12-1991, at about 10.00 p.m. the family of Rane took food, obviously cooked with the help of the gas. When they were about to retire to sleep, there was a strong smell of gas leakage. It is stated that the inmates of the house of Rane rushed and tried to stop the leakage. They called for the help of neighbours. The gas was leaking meanwhile. In order to extinguish the gas leakage, the persons who were collected there, lifted the leaking cylinder and dipped it from the head in the tank containing water. However, the gas on account of pressure, spread to adjoining rooms and adjoining chawls. The gas went to chawl No. 4, where there was burning fire. The gas caught fire and spread in the area. In the result, serious burn injuries were suffered by about 12 persons. Anant Subhan Rane suffered 30% burns and died on 4-1-1992. Sunita Anant Rane suffered 90% burns and died on 25-12-1991. Kumari Vaishali Anant Rane suffered 15% burns and she has claimed the compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- It seems that some other persons also died including Sangita Kishorilal Gupta, Rajesh Kishorilal Gupta, Anil Kishorilal Gupta, who were sustained burns between 90-100%. One Bharat N. Chavan suffered 100% burns and died on 25-12-1991. Naresh Mansikhalal Chavan suffered 40% burns. One Geeta Naresh Chavan suffered 80% burns and Sital Naresh Chavan suffered 75% burns and both of them died. Thus, the incident was extremely serious involving the death of about seven persons.

3. We have before us the claim preferred on behalf of Anant Subhan Rane and Sunita Anant Rane, who are both dead and whose children have preferred the claim application. Kumari Vaishali Anant Rane, aged about 17 years, had also suffered burns. The total compensation seems to be around Rs. 6 lakhs.

4. The complainants have contended that the gas filling was defective and there was leakage of gas with hissing noise. The gas which leaked out of the cylinder, spread to adjoining areas and involved several persons including the seven persons named above, who died on account of extensive burns. This is therefore clearly a case of negligence in service by the opposite parties.

5. The opposite parties have denied the allegations and they have contended that the gas was supplied on 21-12-1991. It was used right upto the night of 22-12-1991 and there was therefore no question of defective filling of the cylinder. The Insurance Companies have contended that they are not responsible for the incidence. The insurance covered is for the defective supply of cylinder resulting in damage to the persons transporting the gas cylinders.

6. We find that facts regarding the death of the parents of Rane are not in dispute. It has been pointed out to us that there is a report submitted by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., dated 21-2-1992. On inspection of S.C. Valve, a small piece of stone with diameter 1-2 mm was found stuck in between the rubber seal (spindle gasket) of the valve pin and the valve orifice. The presence of the stone piece prevented a proper sealing inside the value and left enough gap at the sealing surface to allow escape of LPG. In the report dated 31-1-1992, it is clearly stated that the gas cylinder was in proper condition. It was tested. The cylinder was delivered to the consumer Anant Subhan Rane, who is a single bottle connection holder, on 21st December, 1991 and the same was in use on 21st and 22nd December, 1991 upto 10 p.m. It was understood that the cylinder which had developed profuse leak from the valve was brought out by the consumer and kept in the verandah. The local resident advised the consumer to put the cylinder in a barrel containing water in the inverted position. Following this, LPG started leaking out. It spread in the compound and caught fire from the kerosene stove which was burning. According to the report, the consumer switched off the regulator in a faulty manner. He must have turned the knob beyond the off position to the detached position, thereby unlocking the DPR (pressure regulator). This must have resulted in the regulator popping off from the cylinder in leakage of LPG, due to pin being in open position on account of minute stone chip being lodged in the pin seat. There was no negligence on the part of the distributor. It was due to the consumer's fault. Here we must mention that the cylinder was put in inverted position in the water tank. The same was not handled properly. Had there been defect, the same would have been detected on the day of the supply i.e. 21-12-1991. The accident occurs on the next day night, and this would mean that there was no defective service in the delivery of gas cylinder. The cylinder valve pin got stuck causing leakage.

7. In the first information, it is to be noticed that the accident occurred because of keeping of the knob of gas cylinder in an improper manner. The Punchnama does not show that the articles in the area were burnt. It is therefore difficult to hold that the opposite parties are responsible for this accident.

8. The normal obligation on the consumer is to fit the plastic cap supplied alongwith the cylinder on the head so as to seal the cylinder and prevent the leakage. Unfortunately, the cap was not found at the place. We are, therefore, of the view that the claim for compensation cannot be entertained by us. Accordingly the following order.

ORDER

9. "The complaints are dismissed with, however, no order as to cost."

Complaints dismissed