Vijay Kumar Barman vs Baghela Gas Service

P class="subparagraph">Misc. Application Seeking Condonation of Delay.

FOR the reasons stated in the application, delay of 131 days in filing the Appeal is condoned. First Appeal No. 226/2008

The Appellants in this First Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") are the three unfortunate children, who were deprived of the love, care and support of both the parents, at a tender age when they needed it the most, because of their demise in a fire explosion, while lighting the Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) stove. At the time of accident/death, their father and mother were aged 50 years and 45 years respectively. Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 are the sons and Appellant No. 2 is the daughter.

In the fateful evening of 1.9.2000, for cooking meals, the mother of the Appellants lighted the LPG stove. The fire engulfed the lady. She died of burn injuries on the spot. Her husband tried to save her and in the process sustained extensive burn injuries. He later died in the hospital on 5.9.2000. There was damage to the house as well. The incident was reported to the police the same evening and the Gas Distributor, Respondent No. 1, in this Appeal, was also informed. According to the Appellants, the Gas cylinder supplied by Respondent No. 1 and filled up by the Indian Oil Corporation, Respondent No. 2 herein, did not have the ''nozzle pin''; no sooner its cap was removed the gas leaked from the cylinder and on lighting the stove, there was fire all around in the kitchen, causing serious burn injuries to both of them. The Police investigation confirmed the stand of the Appellants.

Alleging lack of services on the part of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, the Appellants filed a complaint, not happily worded, against them praying for compensation of Rs. 9,00,000 and Rs. 45,000 for the death of their parents and damage to the house respectively.

THE complaint was contested by the Respondents. Written versions, though filed separately, were more or less on similar lines. Denying any defect in the cylinder, the accident was attributed to its mishandling. In view of the pleadings of Respondent No. 1, to the effect that the accident was covered by a risk policy, the Insurance Company, Respondent No. 3, in this Appeal, was impleaded as a party in the complaint. However, except for placing on record a letter stating that the subject accident was not covered by the policy, neither any written version nor any evidence was led on behalf of the Insurance Company.

RELYING on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors. v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, : (2002) 6 SCC 635 : IV (2002) SLT 714 : III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC), the State Commission rejected the preliminary objection raised by Respondent Nos. 1, 2 to the effect that the complaint was not maintainable because it involved disputed questions of fact, requiring detailed inquiry. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the State Commission, inter alia, observed that the cylinder did not have ''nozzle pin''; no significant investigation or inquiry was conducted by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2; the certificate produced by the said Respondents could not and did not establish that in no case a cylinder manufactured and filled by Respondent No. 2 can have such defect so as to cause leakage and on the contrary positive evidence was adduced by the Appellants to prove that fire was as a result of leakage of gas from cylinder when its cap was removed. Accordingly, the State Commission held that the cylinder supplied by Respondent Nos. 1, 2 was defective, which resulted in loss of life and property and therefore, they were liable to compensate the Appellants for the loss on both the counts. It was also held that being the Insurer of Respondent No. 1, Respondent No. 3, was also liable to indemnify them for their third party liability towards the Appellants. As regards compensation, taking into consideration the fact that the father was an earning member and the mother was house wife, the State Commission held that compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 for the death of the father, Rs. 2,00,000 for the death of mother and Rs. 25,000 for loss of property would meet the ends of justice. All the three Respondents herein were directed to pay, jointly and severally, to the Appellants a sum of Rs. 5,25,000 as compensation and Rs. 5,000 as cost of litigation, within 30 days from the date of the order, failing which the said amount was to carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the order till realization. Not being satisfied with quantum of compensation awarded, this Appeal has been preferred for enhancement of compensation. In so far as all the three Respondents are concerned, the findings and directions by the State Commission against them have attained finality in as much as none of them has challenged the impugned order.

THE orders passed by this Commission, dismissing the Appeal for non -prosecution and in default, having been set aside by the Hon''ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.10.2013, on remand, we have taken up the Appeal for disposal on merits.

THE short question arising for consideration is whether or not, in the aforestated factual scenario, a case for enhancement of compensation is made out? At the outset, we may note that in the complaint it was stated that the father and the mother were earning Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 1500 per month respectively. However, learned Counsel, appearing for the Appellants, candidly admitted that no cogent material was brought on record to prove the earning capacity of the deceased and the basis on which the said compensation was prayed for.

THE assessment and quantification of compensation for loss of human life in monetary terms is an extremely difficult task, particularly when there is no evidence about the earning capacity of the deceased and, resultantly, the quantum of deprivation of income to the dependents. Undoubtedly, it would involve some guess work, based on the attendant circumstances. Nevertheless, it has to be fair and equitable, to make good, as far as the money can do, the loss suffered by the family as a result of the incident, and not as a bonanza or largesse. In this regard the following observations by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Anr. v. Jasbir Kaur and Ors., : (2003) 7 SCC 484 : V (2003) SLT 11 : 111 (2003) ACC 90 (SC), though made in the context of a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the death of a 25 years old agriculturist, are apposite for the purpose of determining just compensation in the present case: "The Courts and Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be ''just'' compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of ''just'' compensation which is the pivotal consideration."

In the present case, as noted above, except for the information regarding the age of the deceased (50 years old father and 45 years old mother) and the number of the dependents (three children), no other material has been placed on record to prove as to what was the income of the deceased. Under these circumstances, bearing in mind the afore -extracted observations of the Supreme Court and having regard to the age of both the parents and the Appellants, and the fact that claim was preferred by the Appellants as far as back as in the year 2000, in our opinion, it would be just, fair and reasonable if the compensation awarded by the Fora below is enhanced by a further sum of Rs. 1,75,000. Thus, the total compensation payable to the Appellants will be Rs. 7,00,000 instead of Rs. 5,25,000, awarded by the State Commission. Other directions in the impugned order are maintained.

As Respondent No. 1 was stated to be insured with Respondent No. 3, in the first instance, the amount payable in terms of this order shall be deposited with the State Commission by Respondent No. 3, after taking into consideration the amount, already paid to the Appellants, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It will, however, be open to the said Respondent to recover from the insured any amount, which it is required to deposit in terms of this order, but exceeds the sum assured under the policy. The State Commission shall disburse the amount, so deposited, to the three Appellants in the proportion and the mode, as it may deem proper, keeping in view the age, etc. of the Appellants, as no such information is available with this Commission.

The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs.