Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Dipak Misra & A.K. Shrivastava, JJ.
MOHD. SYED—Appellant
versus
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM—Respondent
First Appeal No. 81 of 1995—Decided on 10.1.2003
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Rakesh Shroti, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Anoop Nair, Advocate.
The main legal point established is the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation for death in a fire mishap when the gas cylinder was insured, and the defendants failed to discharge the burden of proof.
Headnote:
Insurance - Compensation for Death in Fire Mishap - Code of Civil Procedure - Section 96 - [Insurance] - [Compensation for Death in Fire Mishap] - [Code of Civil Procedure - Section 96]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their suit seeking compensation for the death of their son in a fire mishap. The deceased died while trying to save his neighbors from a fire caused by a burst LPG gas cylinder. The plaintiffs claimed compensation for the loss of their son's earning capacity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased died due to burn injuries from the fire caused by the burst gas cylinder. The defendants admitted that the cylinder was insured, and the court held the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation. The court also noted the deceased's contribution to his family and awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000 with 9% interest.
Issues: The main issue was the liability for compensation for the death in the fire mishap.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation as the cylinder was insured, and the defendants failed to discharge the shifted burden of proof. The court also considered the deceased's earning capacity in determining the compensation amount.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the plaintiffs were awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000 with 9% interest, to be paid by the defendants.
A.K. Shrivastava, J.—Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.12.1994 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 07-B/91, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs has been dismissed, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’).
2. In brief, the case of plaintiffs is that their adult son Mohd. Javed died on account of burn injuries sustained by him while he was trying to save the lives of his next door neighbourers in whose house the fire took place.
3. On 13.1.1991 at about 8 a.m., a fire was reported to be broken out in the house adjoining to the plaintiff’s house, as a result of which their adult young and brave son aged about 23 years (Mohd. Javed) rushed to the said house to save the lives of the inhabitants of that house. In this process, their son succeeded to save the lives but unfortunately put his own life into an end on account of sustaining the serious burn injuries. The fire took place on account of the leakage of the LPG gas which caught fire and ultimately the LPG gas cylinder got burst. The plaintiff’s son Mohd. Javed (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) was transmitted to the hospital for the treatment, but, after five days, succumbed to the burn injuries on 18.1.1991.
4. The defendant No. 5 reported the matter to the local police station and after the post-mortem the plaintiffs performed the last ritual of the deceased on 19.1.1991. The Insurance Company (defendant No. 3) is the insurer of the defendant No. 4 (M/s. Book-N-Cook, agent of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation) and as such the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the defendant No. 4 on account of the accident occurred.
5. It has been pleaded that the deceased was carrying on the business of photography and was earning Rs. 1,000/- per month from the said profession. It has been further pleaded by the plaintiffs that the deceased used to spend Rs. 500/- per month for the household expenses.
6. The plaintiffs claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,10,000/- on account of the death of the deceased in the said fire mishap which occurred due to the blasting of the LPG cylinder manufactured by the defendant No. 1 and supplied to the defendant No. 4.
7. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2, namely M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and its Area Manager, Bhopal filed joint written statement and defendant Nos. 3 and 4, namely, M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd. and M/s. Book-N-Cook, agent of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. filed their joint statement. It is apposite to mention that they admitted the contents of para 5 of the plaint that the LPG cylinder in question was insured with the Insurance Company and the other contents were denied on account of want of knowledge.
8. The Trial Court framed number of issues. The plaintiff No. 1 examined himself and also examined Smt. Vimla. From their evidence, we find that on the fateful day i.e., 13.1.1991 in the house of Smt. Vimla, the LPG cylinder caught fire, she tried to extinguish it but failed. She shrieked, as a result of which the deceased came to her house and saved her family members. One baby, a female infant, was sleeping inside the house and to save her the deceased went inside the house. As soon as he lifted the infant, the deceased sustained burn injuries and after seven days, he breathed his last.
9. Plaintiff Mohd. Syed also deposed in the similar manner. In furtherance of the case he deposed that by profession the deceased was a photographer and he was earning Rs. 2,500 per month. In very specific words, he has stated that the offending cylinder was of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
After X-raying the evidence of this witness, we find that he has not been cross-examined on the point that the offending cylinder was not of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. meaning thereby his testimony has gone unchallenged on the said score.
In the re
