KARTHIK AGENCIES Vs. K RAJKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two first appeals against the order passed by the State Commission, Tamil Nadu in complaint No. 198 of 1991.

(2.) The complaint was with regard to a fire accident alleged to be caused by a leak in the valve of a gas cylinder at the residence of the complainant on 3.11.1988, and the compensation claimed was Rs. 3,09,822.40.

(3.) The facts of the case as found by the State Commission are:- The first complainant/respondent is the wife and the second complainant/respondent is her husband. The second complainant is a registered consumer of Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) manufactored by the first Opposite Party M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation and distributed by the second Opposite Party, M/s. Kartik Agencies at Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri District. The second complainant is the beneficiary of the service conduction standing in the name of the second complainant. On 3.11.1988 at about 12.15 p.m. when the first complainant was in the kitchen the cooking gas in the cylinder then in use was exhausted. She switched off the stove and the regulator, removed the cylinder and connected the regulator with the second cylinder. When she switched on the stove and lighted the burner, there was fire in the cylinder and in the entire kitchen. When the complainant tried to put off the regulator, she suffered bum injuries on the hands and legs and face and the neck. The flames were so severe that they were leaping out of the kitchen chimney and neighbors rushed into her house and took her to St. Louis Hospital, Krishnagiri, where she was admitted immediately and from where she was discharged on 25.12.1988. The first complainant then came to Madras and took treatment. She wrote to the chairman, Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Bombay and to the second Opposite Party claiming damages, but did not get any response. To her registered letter, a reply was received form M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Bombay to the effect that there was no accident in the premises on 3.11.1988. The complainants, therefore, came forward with the complaint claiming compensation on various heads to the total of Rs. 3,09,822.40.