Sathish Ninan, J.

1. These connected appeals arise from a common judgment in suits for damages. The relief of damages is claimed consequent on a gas cylinder explosion that occurred in a restaurant of which the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was the owner. The appellants are hereinafter referred to as "owner". The injured in the accident are the plaintiffs in the respective suits. The Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the BPCL"), their distributing agency by name M/s.Cini Gas Agencies (hereinafter referred to as "the agency") and their Insurance Company are the other defendants in the suit.

2. The mishap occurred on 27.02.1995 at about 5.40 p.m. in the restaurant "Mini Coffee House", situated near the South Railway Station, Ernakulam. The restaurant belonged to one P.V.Joseph, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. The allegation of the plaintiffs is that the accident occurred consequent to the negligence on the part of the owner of the restaurant, his employee, the BPCL and its agency/distributor, and that they are liable to pay damages. The incident is not in dispute. According to the owner, the accident occurred due to the defect in the gas cylinder which resulted in the bursting of the cylinder and they are not liable for any damages.

3. The court below found negligence at the hands of the owner of the restaurant and his employee (cook), and accordingly made him liable for damages. In these appeals the owner challenges the liability fixed upon him. The owner would contend that all reasonable precautions were taken and that the accident occurred due the defect in the gas cylinders supplied by the BPCL and their agency.

4. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

5. Primarily the question is regarding the alleged negligence on the part of the owner of the restaurant and his employee. From the evidence it is clear and it is not disputed before us, that the restaurant had two kitchens; one on the eastern side and the other on the southern side of the restaurant. The blast occurred in the kitchen on the eastern side. It has also come out in evidence that the gas cylinder was connected to the burner by means of a flexible rubber tube. These facts cannot be disputed on the face of Ext.A10 copy of FIR registered in Crime No.67 of 1995 of the Ernakulam South Police Station, Ext.A8 Scene Mahazar, Ext.B15 Seizure Mahazar and Ext.B15 inventory, prepared by the Sub Inspector of Police in connection with the crime registered in relation to the incident. DW3 is the cook at whose hands the explosion took place. From his evidence it is clear that there were two hot burner stoves in use in the eastern kitchen. After connecting a new cylinder to a burner, he took a piece of paper, ignited it from the other burner and was about to light the burner to which the new cylinder was fitted whereupon fire spread out from the cylinder which lead to the blast. Exhibit B14 is the fire accident report prepared by the BPCL. Therein the accident is described thus:

"At about 17.40 hours, one of their cook, Mr.Kunjumon lighted a piece of paper from another burner inside the kitchen and was in the process of lighting the canteen burner attached to the Indane domestic cylinder through an IOC DPR and the burner got melted and LPG gushing out of the rubber tube caught fire. The rubber tube got disconnected from the burner and fell hanging on to the side of IOC cylinder and in the process, started heating the cylinder. This intense heat caused bulging of the cylinder which, in turn, resulted in a small tear in the body of the cylinder. The LPG gushing out of this slit caught fire and started heating a full unused 19 KG cylinder kept adjacent to this cylinder."

They have concluded that it was the negligence on the part of the cook which caused burning of the rubber tube and the consequential accident. There is no material to arrive at a different conclusion regarding the causation of the incident.

6. Learned