Back
2024 Supreme(Ori) 361
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K.PANIGRAHI, J.
Sushant Behera - Petitioner
Versus
The General Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. and & Ors. – Respondent
W.P.(C) No.39989 of 2023
Decided on : 16-08-2024
For the Petitioner: Mr. Bijaya Kumar Nayak (3), Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Shantanu Kumar Sarangi, Sr. Adv. along with associates Mr. Srinivas Patnaik, Adv.
The court affirmed the entitlement of accident victims to ex gratia compensation under insurance policies while condemning negligence in safety practices and awareness of insurance coverage responsibilities by gas companies.
Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Ex gratia compensation - Gas Cylinder Blast - The petitioner, a daily labourer, sought compensation for injuries sustained in a gas cylinder explosion that resulted in the death of another individual - The incident occurred within the insurance coverage period - The claimant is entitled to ex gratia compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- as per the insurance policy - The court highlighted the negligence of the opposite parties in managing safety and the claim process, noting their disregard for court orders and the delay in handling the claim - The safety training for consumers and staff handling LPG cylinders is inadequate - The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas should ensure proper awareness regarding insurance coverage for victims of gas leaks. (Paras 1-16)
(B) Public Liability Insurance - The Oil Marketing Companies have a responsibility to provide necessary information regarding the insurance policy and safety practices to consumers which are currently lacking. (Paras 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was injured in a fire accident caused by a gas leak from a cylinder while aiding another victim, who eventually succumbed to his injuries. An application for compensation was submitted but met with delays from the insurance company and gas agency.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the insurance company to pay ex gratia compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the petitioner within two months.
Issues: The primary issues included the entitlement to compensation and the negligence of the entities responsible for the gas supply and safety.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for prompt payment of compensation and the obligation of gas companies to maintain safety standards and properly inform customers about insurance coverage for gas-related accidents.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the incident and circumstances. (Para 2) |
| 2. the responsibility of oil companies in safety awareness. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's directive for compensation claim processing. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. impact of the injuries on the petitioner. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. importance of insurance awareness for victims. (Para 10 , 11 , 15) |
| 6. need for improved safety training for staff and consumers. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 7. conclusion and allowance of the writ petition. (Para 16) |
| 8. directive for creating awareness on safety norms. (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT :
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioner in the present Writ Petition seeks a direction from this Court for payment of ex-gratia compensation amount for the injuries sustained by the Petitioner caused due to gas accident on account of the blast of LPG cylinder.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The petitioner is a daily labourer and was working in the house of late Santosh Kumar Sahoo of Village Khalisahi, Poibadi under Dasa palla police station in the district of Nayagarh. The wife of Late Santosh Kumar Sahoo was a domestic consumer before the Opp. Party No. 3 through dealer Opp. Party No. 4 having consumer No. 85401257, dated 4.7.2017. The family of late Santosh Kumar Sahoo have been using the gas by taking proper care and precaution.
(ii) In the house of late Santosh Kumar Sahoo, there was fire accident on 27.9.2021 due to leakage of gas from the cylinder. Fire spread in the house of late Santosh Kumar Sahoo damaging the household properties. Late Santosh Kumar Sahoo and the petitioner while tried to extinguish the fire, were seriously injured. Both late Santosh Kumar Sahoo and the petitioner were shifted to Nayagarh hospital for treatment. Since the condition was serious, the doctor referred them to SCB Medical College, Cuttack for better treatment. While under treatment, late Santosh Kumar Sahoo passed away on 7.10.2021. After treatment, the petitioner was discharged from the hospital on 22.10.2021.
(iii) The Opp. Party No. 3 i.e. Gas agency is the owner of the gas cylinder and it is distributing to the petitioner through the dealer-Opp. Party No. 4. There is insurance policy insured with the Opp. Party No. 1. The insurance policy number is 4008/220359545/00/000 and the coverage period is from 15.4.2021 to 31.3.2022. As the date of accident is 27.9.2021, the accident occurred during the insurance coverage period.
(iv) As per the conditions of the insurance policy, ex- gratia compensation is to be paid to the victims of the accident, who sustained burn injuries caused due to leakage of gas from the cylinder. The petitioner is the victim of gas accident, hence, is entitled to receive the ex- gratia compensation amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- which is to be paid by the Opp. Party No. 1. Hence, the petitioner has submitted his application to the Opp. Party No. 3 on 16.8.2022 by Regd. Post.
(v) Since no reply is received by the petitioner from the Opp. Parties, the petitioner sought for information from the Opp. Party No. 3 under the ’RTI Act’ through her counsel. Vide letter dt. 23.12.2022, the Opp. Party No. 3 has supplied the information by stating that the claim of the petitioner has been forwarded to the Opp. Party No. 1 on 30.9.2022 by e-Mail.
(vi) As per the policy of the Opp. Party No. 1, the petitioner has to apply to the Opp. Party No. 1 through the Opp. Party No. 3. Later on, the Opp. Party No. 3 will forward the same to the Opp. Party No. 1. In the present case, the petitioner has applied to the Opp. Party No. 3 in time. The Opp. Party No. 3 has forwarded the claim application to the Opp.Party No. 1 by e-Mail.
(vii) It is submitted that as per the policy, the claim is to be considered by the Opp. Party No. 1 on being processed and recommended by the Opp. Party No. 3. The Opp. Party No. 1 is the competent authority to decide the entitlement of the petitioner. Since the claim has already been forwarded since long, without any reason, the Opp. P
