Rewari District Commission Holds Gas Agency And ICICI Lombard House Liable For Indane Cylinder Blast

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (Haryana) bench comprising Shri Sanjay Kumar Khanduja (President) and Shri Rajender Parshad (Member) ordered Rewari Gas Service Agency and M/s ICICI Lombard House to compensate the Complainant who encountered a cylinder blast incident, leading to a severe damage of his house. The District Commission noted that as per the agreement between Rewari Gas Service Agency and the manufacturer, IOCL LPG, the Gas Agency was responsible for bearing expenses related to transportation, and storage, and indemnifying IOCL against any loss or damage arising from the storage, handling, or transportation of gas cylinders. Brief Facts: Mr. Chunni Lal (“Complainant”), a consumer of a Gas Agency enrolled with Rewari Gas Service (“Gas Agency”), held an Indane gas cylinder connection, provided by Indian Oil Corporation Limited (“IOCL”). One day, a sudden blast occurred in the cylinder while the Complainant was preparing tea, resulting in a fire that spread throughout his house. The fire caused extensive damage to household articles, including a television, fridge, bed, windows, doors, ventilators, and other valuables, amounting to Rs. 1 lakh. Additionally, cracks developed in the entire room of the Complainant, leading to a total loss of Rs. 2 lakhs. The Complainant informed the fire brigade and Gas Agency, lodged a DDR at the police station, and informed the incident in the print media. Despite assurances from the Gas Agency that IOCL would provide full compensation, the Complainant didn't receive any compensation from it. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Commission and filed a consumer complaint against the Gas Agency, ICOL and ICICI Lombard House (“Insurance Company”). In response, the Gas Agency contested the Complainant's claims, asserting no liability as it delivered the cylinder in a duly sealed condition to the Complainant's satisfaction. It argued that it was solely a retailer of cylinders and was not responsible for the use, maintenance, upkeep, and handling of the gas cylinders beyond its control. It contended that the Complainant, having repeatedly taken delivery of refilled cylinders without raising issues, cannot take advantage of his alleged wrong. On the other hand, IOCL, denied liability, citing a distributorship agreement with the Gas Agency. According to clauses 15, 17, and 18 of the agreement, the Gas Agency distributor was responsible for indemnifying IOCL of any loss due to the use of cylinders by consumers. IOCL emphasized that the relationship between them was on a principal-to-principal basis, making the manufacturer not liable. It contended that the Complainant never informed either the Gas Agency or IOCL about the accident. However, in a preliminary objection, IOCL mentioned lodging a claim with the Insurance Company after learning about the accident. The Insurance Company argued that the Complainant did not submit the required documents, such as gas passbook, refill details, list of damaged items, fire brigade report, FIR/police panchnama, and property ownership documents. Observations by the Commission: Upon examining the dealership agreement between the Gas Agency and IOCL, the District Commission found that the Gas Agency was appointed as a distributor on a principal-to-principal basis to sell cylinders for household and commercial consumers. The District Commission noted that clauses 15, 17, and 18 of the agreement explicitly placed the responsibility on the Gas Agency to bear expenses related to transportation, and storage, and indemnify IOCL against any loss or damage arising from the storage, handling, or transportation of gas cylinders. Therefore, the District Commission held the Gas Agency liable for the losses suffered by the Complainant. The Commission also addressed the liability of the Insurance Company, refuting the contention that the Insurance Company was absolved of liability because the insured (IOCL) was not liable. Examining the insurance policy schedule, the District Commission noted that the insurance policy granted coverage for property damage to gas consumers at authorized registered premises, with a limit of reimbursement of up to Rs. 2 lakhs per event. The District Commission emphasized that the insurance policy did not specify negligence on the part of the customer or distributor as a prerequisite for coverage. Considering the Complainant's status as a registered customer since 1999 and the extensive damage caused by the fire incident, the District Commission confirmed damage of Rs. 50,000 to the household articles by the District Civic Authorities and directed the Insurance Company and the Gas Agency to jointly and severally pay Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant as damages, along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and harassment, and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation ...

Rewari District Commission Holds Gas Agency And ICICI Lombard House Liable For Indane Cylinder Blast

Smita Singh

Tags