Burn Injuries, Property Damage In Fire Due To Cylinder Leakage: NCDRC Directs BPCL To Pay Compensation

Brief Facts:

The Complainants were long time customers of Ravi Gas Agency (“Supplier”), which used to supply cylinders manufactured by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (“BPCL”). Allegedly, the Supplier delivered a defective gas cylinder to the Complainants on 13^th February 2015. In an attempt to light the gas stove, a leakage occurred, and the house was set on fire. As a result, the Complainants' daughter sustained critical burn injuries and was hospitalized for two months. The treatment costed Rs. 6,60,000/-. Further surgeries were estimated to cost an additional Rs. 5,00,000/-. The fire also caused total damage to the house valued at Rs. 4,00,000/-. Despite being aware of the incident, the Supplier allegedly failed to provide compensation and instead threatened the Complainants against legal action. The Complainants approached United India Insurance Co. (“Insurance Company”) for compensation, as it had an agreement with BPCL to provide insurance cover for protecting customers from such incidents. The Insurance Company paid Rs. 93,000/-, but no further compensation was provided.

Feeling aggrieved, the Complainants filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Durg, Chhattisgarh ('District Commission') against the Supplier, BPCL and the Insurance Company. The District Commission dismissed the complaint and held that the Complainants failed to prove negligence or deficiency in service by the Supplier. Dissatisfied by the order of the District Commission, the Complainants' filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (“State Commission”).

The State Commission dismissed the appeal and held that the fire resulted from the Complainants' unauthorized equipment and not because of a manufacturing defect in the cylinder. Aggrieved by the State Commission's order, the Complainants filed a second appeal before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”), New Delhi. They contended that the State Commission failed to appreciate critical evidence. The gas cylinder was supplied by the Supplier and the fire incident occurred the same day due to leakage from the cylinder. The Complainants further argued that the Supplier admitted its fault by providing Rs. 50,000/- as assistance, but when medical expenses exceeded this amount, the Supplier abandoned them.

Observations by the NCDRC:

The NCDRC noted that the occurrence of the gas leak and subsequent fire accident was undisputed, and that the Complainants' daughter suffered injuries while their house sustained damage. Further, BPCL had an agreement with the Insurance Company to provide a protection cover to its customers. Therefore, it held that the Supplier, BPCL and the Insurance Company were obligated to compensate the Complainants under the terms of the insurance policy unless they could establish that the incident fell within the exceptions of the policy. However, the NCDRC held that the Supplier, BPCL and the Insurance Company failed to provide sufficient evidence to bring the case within such exceptions.

The NCDRC noted that:

“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.”

Therefore, the NCDRC held that the Complainants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the medical treatment of their daughter and the damage to their property caused by the fire accident. Since part of the payment was already made, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the NCDRC directed BPCL to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- to the Complainants within two months.

Case Title: Jai Prakash Yadav and Ors. vs Ravi Gas Agency and Ors.

Case Number: Revision Petition No. 3453 of 2017

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr Rajesh Kumar Bhawnani

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr Maibam N. Singh

Date of Judgment: 28.02.2025

Click Here To Read/Download The Order