Recently, the Orissa High Court directed the Union Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas to establish a comprehensive advertisement policy for oil marketing companies.
The policy should emphasize safety protocols in the handling of LPG cylinders and actively promote public awareness regarding insurance coverage available in the event of accident cylinder explosions.
Brief Fact :
The petitioner, a daily labourer, was working at the residence of late Santosh Kumar Sahoo in Nayagarh district. On 27th September 2021, a fire broke out at the house due to a gas cylinder leak, resulting in significant damage to household property. Both the petitioner and Santosh Kumar Sahoo sustained severe injuries while trying to extinguish the fire. They were initially treated at Nayagarh Hospital and later referred to SCB Medical College, Cuttack, where Santosh Kumar Sahoo succumbed to his injuries on 7th October 2021. The petitioner was discharged on 22nd October 2021 after treatment.
The gas cylinder in question was distributed by Opp. Party No. 3 (the gas agency), insured by Opp. Party No. 1 under a policy covering the period from 15th April 2021 to 31st March 2022. As the accident occurred within the policy coverage period, the petitioner as a victim of the gas accident, claimed ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 2,00,000. Despite submitting an application to Opp. Party No. 3, no response was received. The petitioner sought information under the RTI Act and learned that the claim had been forwarded to Opp. Party no 1, but no further action had been taken.
The petitioner argues that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the Opp. Parties and the claim should be settled immediately as per the insurance policy.
Contention of Petitioner :
The counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is entitled to compensation form the insurance company, as duly recommended by Opposite Party. Counsel highlighted that the serious nature of the matter, especially concerning the lack of awareness among consumers about LPG cylinder safety. The counsel urged the court to address this broader issue, arguing that oil companies must play a more active role in generating awareness regarding safety measures and insurance benefits in case of accidents.
Contention of Respondent :
The counsel for the respondent outlined the steps taken by the company to ensure LPG cylinder safety and consumer awareness. They detailed the manufacturing and testing standards in compliance with the Bureau of Indian Standards and Gas Cylinder Rules of 2016. Additionally, they described the procedures followed by the company for identifying, testing and disposing of defective or expired cylinders. The counsel also highlighted initiatives such as safety clinics, mandatory inspections and media campaigns aimed at educating consumers about safe LPG usage and the importance of regular cylinder testing. They asserted that these measures were part of a comprehensive effort to minimize risks and promote safety awareness.
The counsel also addressed the need for a proactive approach in spreading awareness regarding insurance coverage and the safe handling of LPG cylinders, as emphasized in the court’s previous orders.
Observation of the Court :
The court observed that the Insurance Company had not complied with the directive issued on March 22, 2024, which required it to respond and act within specified deadlines. This failure to comply caused unnecessary delays, leading the court to proceed with an ex-parte judgement, the court stated, “It is evident that despite clear directives from this Court in its order dated 22.03.2024, there has been no compliance or even a basic acknowledgment from the Insurance Company. The lack of any response, clarification, or affidavit from the concerned parties regarding the compliance of this Court’s order demonstrates a disregard for the judicial process”.
Further, the court noted significant deficiencies in the safety training and insurance coverage provided by LPG companies. The court said “It may so happen that LPG Companies are often contended with supplying their cylinders and accessories but the question of safety related training or insurance coverage etc. are the least discussed topic. The knowledge of insurance coverage, in case of any mishaps occur due to LPG cylinder blasts, are unknown to thousands of customers. The response mechanism in case of any blast is also not delineated properly by the LPG supplying companies. It is also often observed the staff handling the LPG cylinders are with little knowledge as to how to safely handle gas cylinders to mitigate the risks of ruptured cylinders, ignition, gas leaks and related human harms”.
It emphasized the urgent need for improved safety protocol and staff training to prevent such accidents in the future and ensure effective emergency responses. The court also held that the ‘Public Liability Policy for Oil Industries’ provides significant coverage, including Rs. 6,00,000 for death, up to Rs. 30 lakh for medical expenses, and Rs. 2,00,000 for property damages however, many victims are unaware of these benefits, the court states “many victims of gas leakage mishaps are unaware of the norm that gas companies are liable to compensate them for their loss under the aforementioned scheme”.
The Decision of the Court :
The court ordered the opposite party to pay Rs. 2,00,000 in compensation to the petitioner for injuries sustained in the gas accident and the court also urged the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas to improve information dissemination about insurance coverage and include details on money receipts.
Title: Sushant Behera vs. The General Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 39989 of 2024
Coram: Justice S.K. Panigrahi
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Bijaya Kumar Nayak
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Shantanu Kumar Sarangi (Sr. Advocate), Srinivas Patnaik
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com