KANDALA RAMA KRISHNA Vs. WWW WOMENS HOSTEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of one Kandala Adilakshmi, hosteler who died on 28.10.2010 on account the injuries received by her in the cylinder blast accident occurred on 24.10.2010 at about 8 a.m. in the premises of the first opposite party hostel and the said Adilakshmi is hereinafter referred to as the deceased. The opposite party No. 2 is the gas agency which said to have supplied the gas cylinder to the said hostel, opposite party No. 3 is the insurer and opposite party No. 4 is the supplier of the LPG Gas. The deceased software engineer joined in the hostel of the first opposite party around the year 2008 as she was selected in WIPRO Software Company and also for the reason the said hostel was nearer to her place of work. While things thus stood on 24.10.2010 at about 8 a.m. when the deceased and other inmates of the hostel went to the dining hall of the hostel a gas cylinder in the kitchen blasted resulting in serious fire accident due to which watchman of the hostel namely Ramesh died on the spot and the deceased and other hostel mates received serious burns. Soon after the accident the deceased was taken to Image Hospital, Ameerpet where she had undergone treatment for five days and on 28.10.2010 at about 9.45 p.m. she died due to the burns received in the said accident. On the complaint concerned police registered the crime 307 of 2010 on 24.10.2010 for the offence under Sections 304A and 337, IPC against the proprietor of the first opposite party and the owner of the hostel premises since they failed to pay proper precautions in the building and the hostel. The said accident had taken place due to the negligent attitude of supplying defective gas cylinder by the fourth opposite party to the first opposite party hostel through the second opposite party and the said defective cylinder was used by the subject hostel without proper checking of the gas cylinder. The third opposite party Insurance Company had issued policies to all the customers of cooking gas cylinder manufactured, filled in and supplied by the fourth opposite party. The deceased was aged about 23 years during the relevant time, working as software engineer in reputed company aforesaid and was earning Rs. 25,000 per month. She was a gold medallist and got great prospects in her employment and she would have earned Rs. 50,000 per month. The first complainant is retired Government servant, he spent huge amount for the education and career of the deceased. Due to untimely death of their young gainfully employed daughter the complainant Nos. 1 and 2 had undergone depression, mental torture, etc., and they addressed a legal notice dated 5.4.2011 to all the opposite parties for which the opposite party No. 4 issued a reply notice dated 20.5.2011 stating that the claim has been settled by the Insurance Company as per policy at Rs. 5 lakh and also paid Rs. 25,000 to the Image Hospital where the deceased had undergone treatment and thus offered Rs. 4,75,000 to the complainants and that the complainants received the said amount under protest without prejudice to their rights. The opposite parties cannot wash off their hands by paying a meagre amount of compensation which is received under protest and thus the complainants prayed to direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs. 25 lakh with 18% interest per annum from the date it fell due till realisation and litigation costs of Rs. 25,000. Despite publication of notice in newspaper the first opposite party did not chose to contest the matter.

(2.) THE opposite party Nos. 2,3 and 4 filed their separate written versions denying the allegations made in the complaint and disputing the claim made by the complainants. However, the opposite party No. 2 admitted that it supplied the gas cylinder manufactured by the opposite party No. 3 and also that after thorough scrutiny and supervision as per the standards of ISO 902 it was so supplied and that there is constant check on the cylinders regarding safety at all the levels. The cylinder supplied to the opposite party No. 1 is perfectly alright and it was as per the procedure and it was duly sealed. The delivery boys of the second opposite party were given instructions to test the cylinders for any possible defects in the presence of the customers concerned and the cylinder which was supplied to the first opposite party without any leakage of whatsoever in nature. All the gas cylinders which were distributed by the second opposite party to its customers are received from the third opposite party and it simply stored them in its godowns for distribution to its customers. If the defective cylinder was stored in the godown certainly all the cylinders would have been busted. But no such incident took place in the godown of the second opposite party. It is only on sheer negligence of the first opposite party the accident had occurred and therefore the second opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation. It is also contended by the second opposite party that it insured with opposite party No. 4 for the period from 24.12.2009 to 23.12.2010 for the benefit of itself for covering against the risk of all liabilities which may arise on account of accident. The concerned police i.e., Rayadurgam, Cyberabad investigated into the case and filed final report in Crime 307 of 2011 stating that owner of the hostel is responsible for the offence. The complaint is barred by limited and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.

(3.) THE opposite party No. 4 admitted that the second opposite party had taken burglary and house breaking policy bearing No. 551107/46/897500000104 covering the period of insurance from 24.12.2009 to 23.12.2010, covering the risk of stock in trade, etc. in respect business premises bearing No. 1 -73/B/5 Sy. No. 50 Gachibowli, Hyderabad District, A.P. Since the complainants filed the complaint alleging the accidental death of their daughter caused by alleged leakage of gas from LPG cylinder at the premises of the first opposite party the said policy is not relevant to the case. The second opposite party also took LPG Traders Combined Policy bearing No. 551107/48/09/2000000954 covering the period of insurance from 26.12.2009 to 25.12.2010 and as per the conditions of the said policy maximum sum insured under Section VIB of the policy is Rs. 15,000 only in the event of accidental death and therefore the opposite party No. 4 is liable to pay limited amount of Rs. 15,000 provided the first opposite party is the registered customer and the alleged accident occurred in the premises registered with the second opposite party subject to other conditions of the policy. The facts of the case reveal that the deceased is not a customer or legal heir of the customer and therefore the fourth opposite party is not liable to answer the claim. It is much more so when the alleged accident did not take place when cylinder was removed or fixed by the employees of the second opposite party. Thus, the fourth opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint.