Mahanagar Gas Ltd vs Prakash Nanji Vora

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member

The wife of the Complainant/Respondent had taken a PNG connection from the Appellant Company in a residential flat where she was living with the Complainant, he being her husband and her mother-in-law. On 28.12.1999, the employees of the Appellant Company visited their house to attend to a complaint of leakage in the gas pipeline. Late Jyotiben Nanji Vora, mother of the Complainant, was alone in the house at the time the workers of the Appellant were engaged in the repair work in her kitchen. The case of the Complainant is that the employees of the Appellant had brought a stove for carrying welding work and there was a sudden explosion when they were working on the stove in the kitchen of the Complainant. As a result there was extensive damage to the flat and the fittings and fixtures installed therein. Late Jyotiben Nanji Vora sustained burn injuries and later on succumbed those burn injuries on 29.12.1998. Alleging negligence on the part of the Appellant in rendering services, the Complainant who is son of Late Jyotiben Nanji Vora approached the concerned State Commission by way of a Consumer Complaint. Initially, the Complainant had claimed compensation amounting to 20,00,000/- from the Appellant. However, the Consumer Complaint was later amended in order to claim enhanced compensation amounting to 70,39,510/- which included 48,93,318 towards interest w.e.f. the institution of the Complaint.

The Complaint was resisted by the Appellant Company which denied any negligence on the part of the workers in carrying out repair, testing etc. It was inter alia stated in the Written Version filed by the Appellant that even the workers deputed by them to carry out the work had sustained serious burn injuries.

The State Commission vide impugned order dated 26.06.2019 directed as under:-

"ORDER

(i) Complaint is partly allowed with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) payable by the Opponent to the complainant.

(ii) The opponent is directed to pay to the complainant Rs.6,85,217/- (Rupees Six Lakh Eighty Five Thousand Two Hundred Seventeen only) with interest @9% per annum from 08/03/1999 till realisation of the amount towards repair charges and expenses for furnishing of house.

(iii) The opponent is directed to pay to the complainant Rs.3,05,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Five Thousand only) with interest @9% per annum from 08/03/1999 till realisation of the amount towards compensation for death of mother.

(iv) The opponent is directed to pay to the complainant Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with interest @9% per annum from 08/03/1999 till realisation of the amount towards compensation for hardships, inconvenience, mental agony and suffering.

(v) The opponent is directed to comply the above order within two months from the date of this order.

(vi) Copies of this order be furnished to the parties free of costs.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission the Appellant is before this Commission by way of this Appeal.

The first submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is that since at the time the original complaint came to be instituted the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission could not have exceeded 20,00,000/-, the amended Complaint was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission, the aggregate amount claimed by the Complainant Company being more than 70,00,000/-. However, in my opinion even if the State Commission did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the amended Complaint at the time when the Original Complaint was instituted, the matter does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its Appellate jurisdiction since the Consumer Complaint, if it is returned to the Complainant for being presented before an Appropriate Forum would have to be instituted only before the State Commission. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served from returning the Consumer Complaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.

Coming to the merits of the case it is admitted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that no evidence was led by the Complainant to prove the actual loss despite an opportunity having been given for this purpose by this Commission vide its order dated 22.11.2016 in the earlier round of litigation between the parties. Admittedly, it is only the workers engaged by the Appellant who were working in the kitchen of the Complainant at the time when the explosion in the kitchen took place. Late Smt. Jyotiben Nanji Vora was alone in the house at that time and was present in the living room. She having died, it was not possible for the Complainant to produce any direct evidence to prove the cause of the explosion which took place in the kitchen of the Complainant. Since it is the workers of the Appellant who was working in the kitchen and who also had admittedly sustained burn injuries and were later discharged from the hospital, it was for the Appellant to explain as to what was the cause of explosion which took place in the kitchen of the Complainant on the fateful day and resulted in extensive damage to the flat and the fittings and fixtures installed therein besides causing death of late Smt. Jyotiben Nanji Vora. The maxim res ipsa loquitur applies to such an incident, cause of which is primarily in the knowledge of the OPs.

This maxim is stated as under in its classic form: -

"Where the thing is to shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care."

With respect to the aforesaid maxim the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shyam Sunder and Ors. vs. The State of Rajasthan AIR 1974 SC 890 inter alia observed as under:-

"The maxim is only a convenient label to apply to a set of circumstances in which the plaintiff proves a case so as to call for a rebuttal from the defendant, without having to allege and prove any specific act or omission on the part of the defendant. The principal function of the maxim is to prevent injustice which would result if a plaintiff were invariably compelled to prove the precise cause of the accident and the defendant responsible for it, even when the facts bearing on the matter are at the outset unknown him and often within the knowledge of the defendant....

The maxim is based on common sense and its purpose is to do justice when the facts bearing on the causation and on the care exercised by defendant are at the outset unknown to the plaintiff and are or ought to be within the knowledge of the defendant (see Barkway v. S. Wales Transport [1950]1 AER 392)....

The plaintiff merely proves a result, not any particular act or omission producing the result. If the result in the circumstances, in which he proves it, makes it more probable than not that it was caused by the negligence of the defendant, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is said to apply, and the plaintiff will be entitled to succeed unless the defendant by evidence rebuts that probability....

Over the years, the general trend in the application of the maxim has undoubtedly become more sympathetic to plaintiffs. Concomitant with the rise in safety standards and expanding knowledge of the mechanical devices of our age less hesitation is felt in concluding that the miscarriage of a familiar activity is so unusual that it is most probably the result of some fault on the part of whoever is responsible for its safe performance (see John, G. Fleming, The Law of Torts, 4th ed., p.260)."

The Appellant having not explained the cause of the explosion, the inference would be that the explosion had taken place on account of the negligence of the workers who were working in the kitchen. This is more so, when, a stove was being used in the kitchen as is noticed from the panchnama which recorded the recovery of a stove from the place of incident.

As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that there is no evidence of the Complainant having actually incurred the expenditure awarded to him by the State Commission was produced. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Complainant had filed two estimates one prepared by Deol Brothers and the other prepared by DJ's Interiors. The State Commission awarded compensation based only on the estimates given by DJ's interiors since the items mentioned in the other estimates were already included in the estimate given by DJ's Interiors. As rightly noted by the State Commission once it was found that the damage caused to the flat of the Complainant and the fittings and fixtures installed therein required an expenditure of 6,85,217/-, it was not obligatory for the Complainant to have actually spend that much amount and give prove of such an expenditure to the State Commission. His flats as well as fittings and fixtures installed therein having got damaged, he was entitled to reimbursement to the expenditure required for carrying out necessary repairs and replacements.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that no affidavit of DJ's Interiors was produced. However, that would not be necessary considering that the estimates prepared by the afore-said Agency was filed and no evidence in rebuttal was produced by the Appellant. Therefore, the award of compensation quantified at 6,85,217/- for the damage to the flat as well as the fittings and fixtures cannot be faulted.

As far as compensation amount to 3,05,000/- on account of loss of life of Smt. Jyotiben Nanji Vora is concerned, the State Commission, to say the least has been very conservative. Awarding of compensation of only about 3,00,000/- for the loss of a precious human life, in my opinion, cannot be stated to be excessive or unreasonable in any manner.

The State Commission has awarded 1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and hardships suffered by the Complainant. The said compensation also cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

It is vehemently submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that there was no justification for award of interest w.e.f. 08.03.1999 when the Consumer Complaint was instituted and at be it could have been from the date the State Commission decided the Complaint. I, however, find no merit in the submission. On account of the Consumer Complaint having remained pending for as much as 20 years, the Appellant Company utilized the amount which lawfully belonged to the Complainant for its own purposes. There is no reason why it should not pay appropriate interest to the Complainant on the principal sum awarded by the State Commission. This is more so in a case where the State Commission in its wisdom has chosen to award a paltry compensation of 3,05,000/- for the loss of the life of Late Smt. Jyotiben Nanji Vora due to negligence on the part of the workers of the Appellant in rendering services to the Complainant.

It was also contended by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Complainant has no locus standi to institute the Complaint since the connection had been taken in the name of his wife and not in his individual name. Again, I find no merit in the submission. Being a class one legal heir of Late Smt. Jyotiben Nanji Vora, the Complainant was entitled to seek compensation on account of her death. It was the flat of the Complaint and the fittings and fixtures installed therein which was extensively damaged on account of explosion which took place in the kitchen of his house. He also happened to be a beneficiary of the gas which was being supplied by the Appellant in his house. Therefore, he was competent also to institute a Consumer Complaint seeking compensation for the loss suffered by him on account of damage to his flat and the fittings and fixtures installed therein.

For the reasons stated herein I find no merits in the Appeal which is accordingly dismissed.

It has been pointed out that the Appellant had deposited a sum of 3,00,000/- with the State Commission on 25.05.2015. If that is so, interest on the amount of 3,00,000/- will be payable only till that date. However, the Complainant in that case will be entitled to interest which may have accrued by keeping the aforesaid amount by the State Commission in a fixed deposit.