NCDRC Orders BPCL To Pay ₹5 Lakh Compensation For Fire Caused By Gas Cylinder Leak That Injured Minor Girl, Damaged House
Pranav B Prem
In a significant ruling, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, comprising Mr. Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) and AVM J. Rajendra (Member), directed Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) to compensate a family whose daughter sustained serious burn injuries and whose house suffered severe damage due to a gas cylinder-induced fire. The Commission held that in the absence of credible evidence to show that the incident fell within the exceptions of the insurance policy, BPCL and the associated parties were liable to pay compensation to the victims.
Background
The Complainants, residents of Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, were long-time consumers of Ravi Gas Agency, which operated as an authorized distributor of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL). On 13th February 2015, a gas cylinder supplied by the agency allegedly leaked and caused a fire when Complainant No. 2 attempted to light the gas stove. The fire severely injured the complainants’ daughter, who sustained approximately 65% burns and was hospitalized for two months. The medical expenses amounted to Rs. 6,60,000, with further surgeries expected to cost Rs. 5,00,000. In addition, the fire caused damage to their house, which was valued at Rs. 4,00,000.
Despite being aware of the incident, the Supplier allegedly threatened the Complainants against initiating legal action and failed to extend adequate assistance. Though Rs. 93,000 was paid by United India Insurance Company (insurer under BPCL's customer protection policy), no further compensation followed. Initially, the Complainants filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg, which was dismissed. The District Forum held that the fire occurred due to the use of unauthorized gas equipment and found no deficiency of service on the part of the respondents.
The Complainants appealed before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh, which upheld the dismissal. The State Commission observed that the regulator and pipe used were not supplied by the distributor and opined that the cylinder was delivered prior to the date of incident, casting doubt on the direct connection between the delivery and the accident. Aggrieved by these findings, the Complainants approached the NCDRC in Revision Petition No. 3453 of 2017.
Contentions Before the NCDRC
The Complainants argued that the lower forums failed to properly appreciate the sequence of events and crucial evidence. It was reiterated that the gas cylinder had been delivered on the very day of the incident and was installed by the staff of the Supplier. The fire broke out immediately upon using the gas stove, and the Complainants contended that the leakage was from the cylinder, not due to any unauthorized equipment. The Supplier, they stated, initially paid Rs. 50,000 as assistance, which indicated an acknowledgment of responsibility. However, no further help was extended once the medical costs escalated.
Further, it was argued that both BPCL and the Insurance Company had knowledge of the incident and that the payment of Rs. 93,000 was made after investigation. The Complainants asserted that the insurance policy taken by BPCL with United India Insurance Company was intended to protect customers from precisely such accidents, and that the OPs were jointly liable to provide adequate compensation under that policy.
On the other hand, BPCL and the Supplier, in their written arguments, denied any negligence and claimed that the fire was caused by the complainants' unauthorized use of a regulator and gas pipe. The Insurance Company argued that there was no privity of contract with the Complainants and that any compensation under the policy was limited to the liability of BPCL. They also submitted that the maximum admissible compensation under the policy was Rs. 5,00,000.
Observations by the NCDRC
The NCDRC held that the sequence of events as narrated by the Complainants was consistent and supported by the record. It was undisputed that a gas cylinder had been delivered by OP-1 on the day of the incident and that the fire broke out during the first use of the stove. The Commission found that the argument of the OPs, blaming unauthorized equipment, lacked substantial evidentiary support. The burden to prove the use of non-standard equipment was on the OPs, which they failed to discharge convincingly.
The Commission further observed: “It is also undisputed that the gas leak and fire incident have occasioned, and the complainants’ daughter suffered injuries and their house sustained damage. In the absence of substantial evidence that was brought forth by OPs to establish that this incident falls within the exceptions to the said insurance contract, the OPs are liable to compensate them in terms of the said policy.”
It noted that the insurance policy in question was meant to cover such incidents, and unless the OPs could clearly bring the case under the exceptions of the policy, they remained liable.
Verdict
Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the NCDRC directed BPCL (OP-3) to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- to the Complainants within two months from the date of the order. This compensation was awarded for both the medical treatment of their daughter and the damage to their property. The Commission also ordered that this amount would carry simple interest at 9% per annum from 13.04.2015 (two months after the date of the incident) till the date of payment. In case of delay beyond the stipulated two-month period, the interest rate for the entire duration would be raised to 12% per annum. Any amount already paid by the OPs, including the Rs. 93,000 paid by the Insurance Company, was to be adjusted against this amount. The revision petition was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.
Appearance
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Bhawnani, Advocate (Through VC)
For the Respondents No.1 to 3: None appeared
For the Respondent No.4: Mr. Maibam N. Singh, Advocate (Through VC)
Cause Title: Jai Prakash Yadav & Ors. V. Ravi Gas Agency & Ors.
Case No: Revision Petition No. 3453 OF 2017
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Subhash Chandra [Presiding Member], Hon’ble AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd), [Member]
[Read/Download order]
