Insurance Cover in Gas Cylinder Explosion
SHYAMSUNDAR
(Querist) 15 June 2009
This query is : Resolved
There was an explosion of gas cylinder in a house ending two lives and injuring other three. I would like to know if there is any insurance cover on those cylinders or any other remedy should be availed.
Plz suggest me.
Thanks.
A V Vishal
(Expert) 15 June 2009
Kindly give the details/facts of the case
adv. rajeev ( rajoo )
(Expert) 15 June 2009
Mostly there will not be any insurance coverage. U can also check it with the gas dealer.
Y V Vishweshwar Rao
(Expert) 16 June 2009
If there is any negligence on the part of the LPG Company there is Insurence and -Gen Insurence is there - for accidents also - You are advised to Appraoch the Local- LPG Comapny Sale Executive - or
Visit the LPG Company Web Site and see all the particulars of consumer care & Insurecne Coverage - by the LPG Comapany and benifits available .
LPG Authorised Usage is condition ! Customers insurnce Coverage !
Guest
(Expert) 16 June 2009
If there is any defect in the gas cylinder and due to these fatal and serious accidents happened, you should not waste time in enquiring whether the Gas company or gas agency has insurance cover or not. You should immediately move the High Court under writ jurisdiction for compensation, after issuing statutory notices to the agency and company. They pay the compensation and later on they will collect the same from insurance agency. If you are not in the city where High Court is not there, then you have to file a civil suit.
H. S. Thukral
(Expert) 16 June 2009
In continuation of advice of Mr. Prabhakar, I have to say that if the accident has occured due to negligence/default/ defect of the gas agency, you can bring a claim against the agency/company under the Fatal Accidents Act.
M. PIRAVI PERUMAL
(Expert) 17 June 2009
KINDLY GO THROUGH THIS JUDGEMENT IN THE SUBJECT MATTER YOU HAVE RISED THE QUERY IT WILL BE USEFUL AND GIVES YOU A CLEAR PICTURE
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
(CIRCUIT BENCH AT PUNE, MAHARASHTRA)
FIRST APPEAL NO. 196 OF 2006
(From the order dated 10.01.06 in Complaint No.217/1999 of the State Commission, Maharashtra)
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. …. Appellant
Vs.
Kaluraj Jasraj Vyas & Ors. ….Respondents
BEFORE :-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT
MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER
For the Appellant : Mr. Neeraj Singh, Advocate
For Mr. P.K. Seth, Advocate
For the Res. No. 1 : NEMO
For the Res.No. 2 : Mr. D.D. Shinde, Advocate
For Jagdish K. Vyas, Advocate
For the Res.No.3 : Mr. H.S. Aglawe, advocate
For the Re.No.4 : Mr. P.K. Belchada, Advocate
Dated 30th January, 2008
O R D E R
M.B.SHAH, J. PRESIDENT
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgement and order dated 10.1.2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra in Complaint No. 217 of 1999, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company) has preferred this appeal.
By the impugned order, the State Commission arrived at the conclusion that because of the explosion of the gas cylinder, fire took place in complainant’s premises and caused damage to the building as well as furniture which was lying in the premises of the complainant. Information was sent to the dealer who in turn informed the Insurance Company as well as the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the HPCL.) Hence, the complaint was filed against the dealer, HPCL., and the Insurance Co.
After going through the evidence which was produced on record, the State Commission held that the dealer (Original Opponent No.1) had taken a Miscellaneous Accident Insurance Policy from the Insurance Company for the period from 27.4.1996 to 26.4.1997, for the coverage of the perils contemplated therein. Despite the service of notice, the Insurance Co. neither appointed surveyor nor gave any response. Therefore, relying upon the survey report of Shri M.B.Nagarkar & Co., the State Commission assessed the loss at Rs.9,65,800/- and arrived at the conclusion that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the said amount, because of the insurance cover. It also observed that the dealer as well as the HPCL are not liable.
Against that order, the Insurance Co. has preferred this appeal.
As per the evidence which is brought on record, the gas cylinder exploded and, thereafter, fire caused extensive damage in the premises of the Complainant/customer of dealer. The explosion took place when the gas stove was sought to be lighted. The fire brigade was called and the fire was extinguished. However, due to fire there was extensive damage in the double storey building and shop where the material was stored. The Police prepared a spot panchnama. Talathi of village, Dhanori also prepared panchnama. The report was given by the fire brigade department to Pune Municipal Corporation and information was given by letter dated 21st May, 1996 by the Complainant to the dealer as well as the HPCL but the claim was not settled and the State Commission passed the aforesaid order.
On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that as the gas cylinder was shifted from the customer’s premises to his shop building where the complainant was residing, the appellant is not liab
M. PIRAVI PERUMAL
(Expert) 17 June 2009
THE JUDGEMENT GIVEN BELOW IN THE SUBJECT MATTER WILL HELP YOU TO PROCEED IN THE MATTER.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
(CIRCUIT BENCH AT PUNE, MAHARASHTRA)
FIRST APPEAL NO. 196 OF 2006
(From the order dated 10.01.06 in Complaint No.217/1999 of the State Commission, Maharashtra)
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. …. Appellant
Vs.
Kaluraj Jasraj Vyas & Ors. ….Respondents
BEFORE :-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT
MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER
For the Appellant : Mr. Neeraj Singh, Advocate
For Mr. P.K. Seth, Advocate
For the Res. No. 1 : NEMO
For the Res.No. 2 : Mr. D.D. Shinde, Advocate
For Jagdish K. Vyas, Advocate
For the Res.No.3 : Mr. H.S. Aglawe, advocate
For the Re.No.4 : Mr. P.K. Belchada, Advocate
Dated 30th January, 2008
O R D E R
M.B.SHAH, J. PRESIDENT
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgement and order dated 10.1.2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra in Complaint No. 217 of 1999, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company) has preferred this appeal.
By the impugned order, the State Commission arrived at the conclusion that because of the explosion of the gas cylinder, fire took place in complainant’s premises and caused damage to the building as well as furniture which was lying in the premises of the complainant. Information was sent to the dealer who in turn informed the Insurance Company as well as the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the HPCL.) Hence, the complaint was filed against the dealer, HPCL., and the Insurance Co.
After going through the evidence which was produced on record, the State Commission held that the dealer (Original Opponent No.1) had taken a Miscellaneous Accident Insurance Policy from the Insurance Company for the period from 27.4.1996 to 26.4.1997, for the coverage of the perils contemplated therein. Despite the service of notice, the Insurance Co. neither appointed surveyor nor gave any response. Therefore, relying upon the survey report of Shri M.B.Nagarkar & Co., the State Commission assessed the loss at Rs.9,65,800/- and arrived at the conclusion that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the said amount, because of the insurance cover. It also observed that the dealer as well as the HPCL are not liable.
Against that order, the Insurance Co. has preferred this appeal.
As per the evidence which is brought on record, the gas cylinder exploded and, thereafter, fire caused extensive damage in the premises of the Complainant/customer of dealer. The explosion took place when the gas stove was sought to be lighted. The fire brigade was called and the fire was extinguished. However, due to fire there was extensive damage in the double storey building and shop where the material was stored. The Police prepared a spot panchnama. Talathi of village, Dhanori also prepared panchnama. The report was given by the fire brigade department to Pune Municipal Corporation and information was given by letter dated 21st May, 1996 by the Complainant to the dealer as well as the HPCL but the claim was not settled and the State Commission passed the aforesaid order.
On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that as the gas cylinder was shifted from the customer’s premises to his shop building where the complainant was residing, the appellant is not liable to compensate the complainant.
M. PIRAVI PERUMAL
(Expert) 17 June 2009
THE JUDGEMENT GIVEN BELOW IN THE SUBJECT MATTER WILL HELP YOU TO PROCEED IN THE MATTER.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
(CIRCUIT BENCH AT PUNE, MAHARASHTRA)
FIRST APPEAL NO. 196 OF 2006
(From the order dated 10.01.06 in Complaint No.217/1999 of the State Commission, Maharashtra)
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. …. Appellant
Vs.
Kaluraj Jasraj Vyas & Ors. ….Respondents
BEFORE :-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT
MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER
For the Appellant : Mr. Neeraj Singh, Advocate
For Mr. P.K. Seth, Advocate
For the Res. No. 1 : NEMO
For the Res.No. 2 : Mr. D.D. Shinde, Advocate
For Jagdish K. Vyas, Advocate
For the Res.No.3 : Mr. H.S. Aglawe, advocate
For the Re.No.4 : Mr. P.K. Belchada, Advocate
Dated 30th January, 2008
O R D E R
M.B.SHAH, J. PRESIDENT
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgement and order dated 10.1.2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra in Complaint No. 217 of 1999, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company) has preferred this appeal.
By the impugned order, the State Commission arrived at the conclusion that because of the explosion of the gas cylinder, fire took place in complainant’s premises and caused damage to the building as well as furniture which was lying in the premises of the complainant. Information was sent to the dealer who in turn informed the Insurance Company as well as the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the HPCL.) Hence, the complaint was filed against the dealer, HPCL., and the Insurance Co.
After going through the evidence which was produced on record, the State Commission held that the dealer (Original Opponent No.1) had taken a Miscellaneous Accident Insurance Policy from the Insurance Company for the period from 27.4.1996 to 26.4.1997, for the coverage of the perils contemplated therein. Despite the service of notice, the Insurance Co. neither appointed surveyor nor gave any response. Therefore, relying upon the survey report of Shri M.B.Nagarkar & Co., the State Commission assessed the loss at Rs.9,65,800/- and arrived at the conclusion that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the said amount, because of the insurance cover. It also observed that the dealer as well as the HPCL are not liable.
Against that order, the Insurance Co. has preferred this appeal.
As per the evidence which is brought on record, the gas cylinder exploded and, thereafter, fire caused extensive damage in the premises of the Complainant/customer of dealer. The explosion took place when the gas stove was sought to be lighted. The fire brigade was called and the fire was extinguished. However, due to fire there was extensive damage in the double storey building and shop where the material was stored. The Police prepared a spot panchnama. Talathi of village, Dhanori also prepared panchnama. The report was given by the fire brigade department to Pune Municipal Corporation and information was given by letter dated 21st May, 1996 by the Complainant to the dealer as well as the HPCL but the claim was not settled and the State Commission passed the aforesaid order.
On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that as the gas cylinder was shifted from the customer’s premises to his shop building where the complainant was residing, the appellant is not liable to compensate the complainant.
M. PIRAVI PERUMAL
(Expert) 17 June 2009
THE JUDGEMENT GIVEN BELOW IN THE SUBJECT MATTER WILL HELP YOU TO PROCEED IN THE MATTER.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
(CIRCUIT BENCH AT PUNE, MAHARASHTRA)
FIRST APPEAL NO. 196 OF 2006
(From the order dated 10.01.06 in Complaint No.217/1999 of the State Commission, Maharashtra)
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. …. Appellant
Vs.
Kaluraj Jasraj Vyas & Ors. ….Respondents
BEFORE :-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT
MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER
For the Appellant : Mr. Neeraj Singh, Advocate
For Mr. P.K. Seth, Advocate
For the Res. No. 1 : NEMO
For the Res.No. 2 : Mr. D.D. Shinde, Advocate
For Jagdish K. Vyas, Advocate
For the Res.No.3 : Mr. H.S. Aglawe, advocate
For the Re.No.4 : Mr. P.K. Belchada, Advocate
Dated 30th January, 2008
O R D E R
M.B.SHAH, J. PRESIDENT
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgement and order dated 10.1.2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra in Complaint No. 217 of 1999, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company) has preferred this appeal.
By the impugned order, the State Commission arrived at the conclusion that because of the explosion of the gas cylinder, fire took place in complainant’s premises and caused damage to the building as well as furniture which was lying in the premises of the complainant. Information was sent to the dealer who in turn informed the Insurance Company as well as the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the HPCL.) Hence, the complaint was filed against the dealer, HPCL., and the Insurance Co.
After going through the evidence which was produced on record, the State Commission held that the dealer (Original Opponent No.1) had taken a Miscellaneous Accident Insurance Policy from the Insurance Company for the period from 27.4.1996 to 26.4.1997, for the coverage of the perils contemplated therein. Despite the service of notice, the Insurance Co. neither appointed surveyor nor gave any response. Therefore, relying upon the survey report of Shri M.B.Nagarkar & Co., the State Commission assessed the loss at Rs.9,65,800/- and arrived at the conclusion that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the said amount, because of the insurance cover. It also observed that the dealer as well as the HPCL are not liable.
Against that order, the Insurance Co. has preferred this appeal.
As per the evidence which is brought on record, the gas cylinder exploded and, thereafter, fire caused extensive damage in the premises of the Complainant/customer of dealer. The explosion took place when the gas stove was sought to be lighted. The fire brigade was called and the fire was extinguished. However, due to fire there was extensive damage in the double storey building and shop where the material was stored. The Police prepared a spot panchnama. Talathi of village, Dhanori also prepared panchnama. The report was given by the fire brigade department to Pune Municipal Corporation and information was given by letter dated 21st May, 1996 by the Complainant to the dealer as well as the HPCL but the claim was not settled and the State Commission passed the aforesaid order.
On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that as the gas cylinder was shifted from the customer’s premises to his shop building where the complainant was residing, the appellant is not liable to compensate the complainant.
