The main legal point established in the judgment is the concept of contributory negligence in a fire accident case, leading to joint and several liability of the parties involved.

Mr. Justice S.N. Kapoor, Member—This First Appeal is directed against the order dismissing the complaint claiming compensation for loss suffered due to fire occasioned on account of explosion of gas cylinder/leakage of gas in Complaint No. 118 decided by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka.

2. Facts giving an occasion to file this appeal may be stated briefly as under:

According to the complainant/appellant on 17.2.1996 at about 2.00 a.m., while he was in deep sleep at his residence “Muthi Laxmi Niwas”, he along with others suddenly heard the noise of gas cylinder explosion, woke up and switched on the light and the moment he switched on the light, the entire room engulfed in a bowl of fire. The complainant tried to save his wife and daughter. But in this process he got burn injuries. It also caused extensive damage to his house. The complainant was using L.P. Gas Cylinder of Bharat Petroleum Corpn. at his residence, supplied by dealer M/s. Rohan Gas Distributors. According to the complainant, the incident took place due to leakage of gas. FIR was lodged. The police visited the complainant on 17.2.1996, prepared a statement. According to the complainant, he was in shock and he signed the statement without reading it. Since he suffered burn injuries to the extent of 20%, he was admitted in the hospital and during hospitalisation for 17 days, he incurred an expenditure of Rs. 13,027 towards medicines, hospitalisation charges, etc. The fire damaged the main door, the window, the wiremesh and the glass-panes, curtains, cloths, pants, shirts, sarees, baby dress and sofa set also. His work efficiency was retarded due to burn injuries and scars and white patches on his right arm and palm, etc. According to the complainant/appellant, the fire took place on account of defective regulator of the cylinder.

3. The opposite party No. 2, the Rohan Gas Distributor, replaced the cylinder, regulator and the hose-pipe on the date of accident itself in order to cover the track of defective cylinder, regulator and hose-pipe.

4. The complainant in his complaint, claimed the following amounts:

“1.

Medical Expenses

:

Rs.

13,027.65

2.

Damages to the properties

:

Rs.

40,650.00

3.

Loss of one month’s salary

:

Rs.

7,615.00

4.

Mental agony and shock

:

Rs.

5,00,000.00

5.

Interest at 18% p.a. from

17.2.1996 till the date of filing

the suit

:

Rs.

4,000.00

Total

:

Rs.

5,65,292.65"

5. In addition to the above, he claimed the interest @ 18% p.a. on the above said sum.

6. Bharat Gas Corpn. Ltd. O.P./respondent No. 1 contested the claim of the complainant/appellant contending that in view of contradiction with FIR the complainant was not sure about the date and approximate time of the incident. It was denied that the replacement of cylinder, regulator and hose-pipe on 17.2.1996 took place in order to cover the track of defective regulator, etc. It was done only on sympathetic grounds for gas was required for day-to-day use. The fact of admission of the complainant in hospital had been disputed due to his presence at the time of preparation of Mahazar. It was also denied that the complainant signed the statement made before the Police without reading the same. His submission that due to the burn injuries his work efficiency had retarded and his image of professional efficiency had been tarnished on account of the white patches in his right arm, palm, etc., was also denied. It was also denied that the complainant had to spend Rs. 20,000 to repair the main door, the window, the wire-mesh, etc., which were alleged to have been destroyed in the fire, the expenditure of Rs. 2,000 towards conveyance to attend the hospital for treatment has also been disputed. Joint and several liability of the respondent/opposite party-1 along with others has been denied. According to them, the fire accident actually occurred due to the leakage of hose pipe connected to the regulator and it was so confirmed by the Surveyor. L.P.G. Equipment Research Centre, examined and teste