JASWINDER KAUR vs DEEPAK NIRULA

SHRI Surinder Pal Singh, along with SHRI Ashish Malhotra visited the Nirula Restaurant called Pot Pourrie, E- Block, Connaught Place on the 18th March, 1991 for food and snacks. SHRI Surinder Pal Singh is reported to have gone to the toilet of the restaurant on the 1st Floor where a blast took place as a result of which he died.

THE complainants are Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, widow, Master Gurpreet Singh, son and Shri Harbhajan Singh and Smt. Amarjit Kaur, the parents of the deceased. THE complainants have alleged that the blast, in which Shri Surinder Pal Singh died took place due to an explosion caused by the leakage of LPG gas in the premises of the restaurant. This is based on the statement of Shri Ashish Malhotra who claims to have been accompanying the de- ceased at the time they were taking their food and snacks in the restaurant. According to Shri Malhotra "the staff of the restaurant and the customers present there informed him that the blast was caused due to explosion caused by leakage of gas in the "premises". According to the complainant, the leakage of gas in the premises was due to the negligence of the restaurant and it was this rash and negligent act of the restaurant which caused the blast and the death of late Shri Surinder Pal Singh. Further, according to the complainants, the Opposite Party later on gave statement in the press that the blast was caused by a bomb and not by gas leakage. They have argued that even if this is assumed to be correct, the blast was caused due to laxity in the security arrangement of the restaurant to keep the premises safe and secure for the customers. As such, even if the blast was assumed to have been caused by a bomb, this does not absolve the management of its responsibility and liability.

The deceased was only 29 years of age at the time of his death. He has left behind a widow, aged 24, a son aged 4 years and aged parents 60/65 years of age. The deceased was said to have been earning Rs. 5,000/- p.m. The claimants have, therefore, claimed dam- ages amounting to Rs. 12 lakhs from the Opposite Party restaurant.

THE Opposite Parties have contested the complaint. THEy have submitted that there was no gas leakage at all. On the other hand, they have averred that there was a bomb blast by the terrorists which caused the mishap resulting in the death of Shri Surinder Pal Singh in the toilet on the 1st floor of the restaurant. In this connection, they have submitted the following points to support their contention: (i) THE LPG gas pipeline to the kitchen does not run through the toilets. In particular, there was no gas pipeline in the gents tiolet in which the blast occurred. (ii) THE kitchenette on the Mezzanine 1st floor of the restaurant did not sus- tain any damage. It is in the kitchenette that cooking gas is used. (iii) Emar Sons, the distributor of HP gas, in his letter of 19th March, 1991 to the Opposite Party restaurant, claims to have conducted a pressure test at the Pot Pourrie restaurant and found that there had been no damage to the LPG Pipeline due to the blast and that no leakage of gas was detected. (iv) THE supplier of the LPG gas cylinders to the restaurant, Sidhartha Enterprises in his declaration on 27th April, 1992 has stated that he had checked up the LPG bank of the restaurant after the blast and found that all the cylinders were intact. (v) THE S.H.O. of the Connaught Place Police Station in his letter of 4th July, 1991 to the Nirula's Corner House Ltd. has stated that some of the accused in the blast case had been arrested and investigation is going on into the case under Explosives Act, T.A.D.A. and I.P.C. (vi) THE Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Cell, Delhi in his letter of 17th February, 1992 to the Security Officer, Nirula's Restaurant has stated that two persons have been arrested for planting an explosive device in the toilet of the restaurant and that they were being prosecuted under the Explosives Act, T.A.D.A. and I.P.C. (vii) THE Consultant to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi on 23rd February, 1992 has certified that a bomb explosion took place in the Nirula's restaurant on 18th March, 1991 and the accused have been arrested.

So far as the complainant is concerned, the only evidence that has been adduced and relied on is the affidavit of Shri Ashish Malhotra wherein he has stated that "the whole of the staff and the security personal were saying that the gas cylinder has bursted. The staff was saying that a similar blast caused by the gas cylinder took place in the kitchen of the Pot Pourric Restaurant about a year earlier to that".

THIS Commission, in its order of 15th September, 1993 had directed the parties to file affidavits on behalf of their witnesses and that these affidavits would be treated as their depositions-in-chief. After examining the affidavits, it would be decided whether we should call any of the deponents for cross-examination. It is quite evident from the above, that there is no evidence that the blast which took place in the toilet of the restaurant was due to the leakage of LPG gas. On the other hand, the evidence clearly discloses that there was no gas leakage and therefore there is no basis for the allegation that the blast occurred as a result of gas catching fire. In fact the evidence is to the effect that the blast was the result of a bomb planted by terrorists.

WE do not find any merit in the contention of the complainants that there was laxity in security on the part of the Opposite Party restaurant and that this constituted deficiency in service. This plea has only to be rejected.

IN view of the above, no case is established against the Opposite Party restaurant for grant of any relief on the ground of deficiency in service. The complaint petition is accordingly dismissed. From the evidence on record, we have reason to think that the complaint is false and frivolous. Normally, we would have saddled the complainant with compensation and costs but in this case we think that they have been ill- advised and misled in filing the complaint in the hope of getting some compensation from the Opposite Party. We, therefore, order that the parties will bear their own costs. Complaint Petition dismissed.