New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs NAIK WADHUMAL ALIMCHANDANI

THIS revision is directed against the order dated 20.3.1999 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State dismissing appeal against the order dated 25.6.1997 of a District Forum whereby petitioner/opposite party No. 3 was directed to pay to respondent No. 1/complainant a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- being the estimated amount of cost of repairs to the property with interest and amount of Rs. 5,000/- by way of compensation as also cost.

FACTS giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. Respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 1 dealer of respondent No. 3/opposite party No. 2 had supplied a gas cylinder to Surjansingh Gulbaxsingh occupying a flat on the 2nd floor in the building Sea Craft at Colaba, Mumbai. Respondent No. 1 was staying below that flat in the 1st floor of building. On 18.1.1995 at about 7.00 p.m. fire broke out in the flat occupied by said Surjansingh Gulbaxsingh because of leakage of gas from the cylinder. Fire tender sprayed water to extinguish the fire. In that process, the water entered into the flat of respondent No. 1 thereby causing damage to the furniture, etc. Respondent No. 1, therefore, filed a complaint for recovery of amount of the damages which was contested by the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. However, pleas taken in the written versions need not be referred to for deciding this petition. We have heard Mr. Jitender Vashisht for petitioner and Ms. Shashi Kiran for respondent No. 1.

Taking note of the contention advanced on behalf of petitioner-Insurance Company that it was not liable to indemnify for any loss suffered by respondent No. 1, stranger to the policy, notice was ordered to be issued on 17.7.2001 after formulating the question if respondent No. 1 is covered under Section VII of the Insurance policy. This Section VII has been referred to in the order of State Commission and the same being material, is reproduced below : "The company will indemnify the Insured in respect of all sums which the insured is legally liable to pay as compensation and litigation expenses incurred by the insured at the company''s written consent in respect of accidental death or bodily injury to any person other than a person under the Insured''s service and Insured''s family members and/or accidental damage to property caused by or arising from the installation of gas filled liquefied petroleum gas cylinder in the premises of the Insured''s customers or whilst such cylinder from the Insured''s premises are in the course of being carried for installation in the premises of the Insured''s customers or whilst such empty cylinders are in the course of being carried from the premises of the Insured''s customers to the Insured''s premises, not exceeding in all for compensation and litigation expenses the limit of Rs. ...... for any one accident or a series of accidents arising from any one event and Rs. ........ (as stated in the Schedule) for all accidents during any one period of insurance and also whilst lying at the insured''s premises specified in the schedule."

IT is not in dispute that the insurance policy in question was taken by respondent No. 2 from the petitioner. Bare reading of said Section VII would show that it will include damage to the property of respondent No. 1 as it was on account of pumping of water by fire tender to extinguish fire arising from the installation of gas filled liquefied petroleum gas cylinder in the premises of insured''s customer, i.e., Surjansingh Gulbaxsingh. Thus, there is no illegality or jurisdictional error in aforesaid order passed by District Forum which was affirmed by State Commission in appeal. Accordingly, revision is dismissed with Rs. 3,500/- as costs to respondent No. 1. Revision Petition dismissed.