JUDGMENT V. P. Gupta, J.—Plaintiff No. 1 (Bhagwant Sarup) was registered as a consumer No. F/487 with defendant No. 1 (M/s. Himalya Gas Company) for the supply of cooking gas. A gas connection was installed in his premises known as 141, Malhotra Building, Lower Bazar, Simla. The cooking gas cylinders used to be supplied by defendant No. I through its trained workmen and servants who used to replace old empty gas cylinder by installing a new g 2. The plaintiffs allege that they had booked replacement of a gas cylinder with defendant No. 1 on 3/4th June, 1975 because their previous gas cylinder had exhausted. Defendant No. 1 sent a cooking gas cylinder through defendant No. 5 (Gulam Mohamed) on 14-6-1975 at about 2.20 p. m. Defendant No. 5 kept the cylinder in the corridor and asked the plaintiffs to give some instrument for opening the cylinder and got a small axe meant for breaking fire wood and coal etc. It is alleged that defendant No, 5 gave two or three knocks to the gas cylinder which appeared to be defective. Plaintiff No. 3 (Brij Bala) asked defendant No. 5 to take back the gas cylinder as the same was defective but defendant No. 5 told her that it was his routine job and the gas cylinder would be replaced and fitted. As a result of the knocking, some serious damage was caused to the gas cylinder with the result that liquid gas started leaking out and within a few seconds it caught fire because in the kitchen which adjoins the corridor, a fire was burning. Defendant No. 5 after seeing the fire gave a kick to the gas cylinder towards the door thereby blocking the exit from the premises. He himself fell outside the door. Plaintiffs Nos. 2, 3 and 5 saw the fire and they jumped out of the room from the windows because the door was blocked. Plaintiff No. 4 and one Kumari Seema deceased (daughter of plaintiff No. 1) remained inside the room. Plaintiff No. 2 wanted to rescue both these girls but could rescue plaintiff No. 4 only. Kumari Seema deceased was found dead in the room after the fire had been put off by the fire-brigade. 3. It is alleged that plaintiff No. 3 was in advanced stage of pregnancy. Plaintiff No. 2 wanted to rescue both these girls but could rescue plaintiff No. 4 only. Kumari Seema deceased was found dead in the room after the fire had been put off by the fire-brigade. 3. It is alleged that plaintiff No. 3 was in advanced stage of pregnancy. She suffered serious burn injuries on her face, neck and head, right and left arms, chest and abdomen, thighs and legs and her hair were also burnt. She remained admitted in the hospital but inspite of the medical treatment she could not recover her normal health and was dis-figured permanently. She suffered mentally and physically and is permanently unfit to discharge her normal duties. Plaintiff No. 2 also received burn injuries on his face, both hands and both legs and blisters on right calf and remained admitted in the hospital for treatment. Plaintiff No. 4 also remained admitted in the hospital because she also received burns on her legs, hands abdomen and back and her hair were also burnt. Plaintiff No. 5 also got burns and remained admitted in the hospital, 4. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 are real brothers while plaintiff No. 3 is the wife of plaintiff No. 1 and plaintiff No. 4 is the minor daughter of plaintiff No. 1. Plaintiff No, 5 is the servant with plaintiff No. 1. 5. The plaintiffs allege that they have suffered the burn injuries on account of the negligence and carelessness of defendant No. 5 in performance of his duties. They also allege that merchandise goods stored by them in an adjoining room of the house were totally burnt and other goods were also burnt in fire. The plaintiffs have claimed the following losses as detailed in Para 14 of the plaint : (i) Shri Bhagwant Sarup : (a) For the death of his child Kumari Seema. Rs. 10,000 (b) For the loss of health of his wife. Rs. 5,000 (c) For mental torture suffered by him. Rs. 5,000 (d) For expenses incurred on treatment of sufferers. Rs. 3,000 (e) For cost of household effects burnt. Rs. 24,000 (f) For replacement of new articles. Rs. 6,000 (g) For value of his share of cloth burnt. Rs. 8,000 (h) For loss of business. Rs. 1,500 Rs. 62,500 (ii) Brij Rate : (a) For the death of her child Kumari Seema. Rs. 3,000 (e) For cost of household effects burnt. Rs. 24,000 (f) For replacement of new articles. Rs. 6,000 (g) For value of his share of cloth burnt. Rs. 8,000 (h) For loss of business. Rs. 1,500 Rs. 62,500 (ii) Brij Rate : (a) For the death of her child Kumari Seema. Rs 10,000 (b) For the consequential result of the incident, i. e. injuries caused, pain^ mental torture, disfigurement and temporary and permanent disabilities caused etc. suffered and being suffered by her Rs. 16,000 Rs. 26,000 (iii) Shanti Samp : (a) For the injuries caused in consequence of the sudden breaking out of fire and for being confined to the hospital having suffered pain and mental torture. Rs. 5,000 (b) for his share of stock of cloth burnt in store. Rs. 6,000 (c) For loss of business Rs, 1,500 Rs, 12,500 (iv) Kumari Rajni Although she is entitled to much more amount of damages yet in the meantime on her behalf only Rs. ten thousand are being claimed for all consequences of the said negligent act. Rs 10,000 (v) Shiama Nand : Plaintiff Shiama Nand claims for the pain and mental torture and worry faced by him and for the disfigurement of his face, etc., a sum of Rs. Rs. 5,000 Grand Total Rs. 1,16,000 6. A notice is alleged to have been sent to the defendants but the defendants while admitting the accident denied the cause of the accident. With these allegations, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit on 14-6-1976 of the recovery of Rs, 1,26,000 (in fact Rs. 1,16,000). 7. Notices of the suit were issued to the defendants. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in their written statement allege that the suit is not maintainable and the plaintiffs should have filed separate suits. The complaint of injuries is not actionable in law and the defendants are not liable for any damages. The liability of these defendants stood statutorily indemnified by the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. and there was no negligence or breach of duty on the part of these defendants. They have exercised due and reasonable care in the course of their agency qua the plaintiffs. The alleged injury is the direct result of plaintiffs own negligence and contributory negligence and therefore the defendants are not liable. They have exercised due and reasonable care in the course of their agency qua the plaintiffs. The alleged injury is the direct result of plaintiffs own negligence and contributory negligence and therefore the defendants are not liable. They admitted that defendant No. 5 was their delivery-man and was duly trained and appointed by defendant No. 1 on behalf of the Oil Corporation for the furtherance of the trade of Oil Corporation and strictly in accordance with the express terms and conditions of the agency. They further allege that at the time of the issuance of the connections for the gas, an instruction card is issued to the consumers, and with each L. P. Gas cylinder a warning lable/card is issued. The consumers have to take all the precautions according to the instructions. The L. P. Gas cylinder supplied to the plaintiffs was duly checked in the store and was found in perfect order before the same was handed over to defendant No. 5 for delivery to the plaintiffs. There was no negligence or carelessness on the part of the defendants. The plaintiffs themselves are responsible for the fire and consequent injuries complained of by them is direct result of their own acts of negligence and contributory negligence, 8. Defendant No. 5 in a separate written statement has raised similar objections. He further alleges that when he reached the house of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were taking their meals in the kitchen. He was not allowed to enter the kitchen and therefore, he kept the gas cylinder outside the plaintiffs residence and waited for 5/6 minutes. Then he requested the plaintiffs to take the delivery of the gas cylinder. One servant of the plaintiffs came out and asked to handover the gas cylinder to him. He refused to do so but plaintiff No. 5 assured him that he (plaintiff No. 5) had been fixing the gas cylinder earlier also. The plaintiff No,#5 thereafter took the gas cylinder inside the kitchen. Defendant No. 5 then heard the voice of the falling of the gas cylinder inside the kitchen and fire broke out in the house. Defendant No. 5 picked up the cylinder and threw it outside the main house with the result that he got burn injuries. The plaintiff No,#5 thereafter took the gas cylinder inside the kitchen. Defendant No. 5 then heard the voice of the falling of the gas cylinder inside the kitchen and fire broke out in the house. Defendant No. 5 picked up the cylinder and threw it outside the main house with the result that he got burn injuries. He alleges that the injuries caused to the plaintiffs were due to their acts of negligence and contributory negligence and that there was no breach of duties on his part. He never knew that an angethi/fire was burning inside the kitchen as he never entered the kitchen. Defendant No. 4 was originally described as the Regional Manager of the Indian Oil Corporation of India. Subsequently by orders on an application (O. M, P. No. 166 of 1978) the name of "Regional Manager" was allowed to be deleted with the result that Indian Oil Corporation became defendant No. 4. The learned Counsellor defendant No. 4 filed an application (O. M. P. No. 73 of 1980) for permission to take an additional plea of limitation. On this application defendant No. 4 was allowed to raise the plea of limitation. Defendant No. 4 raised similar pleas and also alleged that the suit is time barred, is bad for multifarious ness and is not maintainable. It is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and misjoinder of parties. There is no liability of defendant No. 4 and defendant No. 4 is entitled to special costs under section 35-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 9. Replication was filed in which the allegations of the written statements were denied and the allegations of the plaint were re-asserted. 10. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 18-3-1980 :— 1. Is not the suit properly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction ? OPD. 2. Is the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. A necessary party ? OPD. 3. Whether the accident in question took place on account of the negligence of defendant No, 5 who is admittedly the agent of the other defendants ? OPP. 4. Whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiffs or any of them which contributed towards the occurrence of the accident in question ? OPD, 5. OPD. 3. Whether the accident in question took place on account of the negligence of defendant No, 5 who is admittedly the agent of the other defendants ? OPP. 4. Whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiffs or any of them which contributed towards the occurrence of the accident in question ? OPD, 5. Whether the plaintiffs committed the breach of any term of the contract between the parties which contributed to the occurrence of the accident in question ? OPD. 6. Whether and if so to what compensation are the individual plaintiffs entitled as a result of the said accident ? 7. To what relief and against whom are the plaintiffs entitled ? An additional issue was framed on 20th May, 1980 : 8. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is within time ? Subsequently an application was moved by defendant No. 1 (O. M, P. No. 292 of 1981) with a prayer that M/s. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. be impleaded as defendant. Vide orders dated 11-3-83, M/s. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. was impleaded as defendant No. 6, Notices of the suit were issued to defendant No. 6. 11. Defendant No. 6 filed a written statement and contested the claim of the plaintiffs. On the written statement of defendant No. 6 the following four issues were framed on 10-11-1983 ;— 6-A. Whether the suit against defendant No. 6 is within time ? OPP. 6-B, Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties as alleged by defendant No. 6 ? OPD 6, 6-C. Whether the suit does not disclose any cause of action against defendant No. 6 ? OPD 6, 6-D. Whether the suit is not maintainable against defendant No. 6 for the reasons mentioned in preliminary objection Nos. 3 (a) 4 and 5 of the written statement filed by defendant No. 6 ? OPD 6, 12. Arguments on the issues framed on 10-11-1^83 were heard and vide my orders dated June 29, 1984, it was held that the suit against defendant No. 6 is not within time and the same cannot be decreed against defendant No. 6. The case was listed for arguments. 13. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Issue No. 1 14. The case was listed for arguments. 13. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Issue No. 1 14. This issue is not pressed by the learned Counsel for the defendants. The present suit is for recovery of a specific amount of money and advalorem court-fee has been paid by the plaintiffs. In these circumstances the suit has been correctly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction and issue No. 1 is decided against the defendants. Issue No. 2. 15. The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company was implead- ed as defendant No. 6. However, vide orders dated 29-6-1984, the suit against defendant No. 6 is to be dismissed. This issue is decided accordingly. Issues No. 3, 4 and 5. 16. These three issues are inter-connected and are being decided together. 17. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs contends that the cylinder supplied by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 was defective and defendant No. 5 acted negligently and carelessly in giving knocks to the cylinder with the result that the liquid gas leaked but and a fire broke in the house. He contends that defendant No 5 (deliveryman) was an agent of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and was expected to be a trained man. Any negligence or carelessness on the part of defendant No. 5 is carelessness or negligence on the part of defendants Nos. 1 to 3, who are liable for the acts, omissions and commissions of defendant No- 5. It is contended that defendants Nos. 1 to 3 had authorised defendant No. 5 to deliver the gas cylinder by fixing the same in the premises of the plaintiffs. Hence defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 are liable for the damages claimed by the plaintiffs. The learned Counsel further contends that defendants Nos. 1 Jo 3 have to give training to the delivery- men and a deliveryman can only be appointed after imparting due training to him. 18. The learned Counsel concedes that defendant No. 4 may not directly be liable for the damages claimed and the plaintiffs would feel satisfied if the liability is fixed upon defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and 5. 19. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of defendants Nos. 18. The learned Counsel concedes that defendant No. 4 may not directly be liable for the damages claimed and the plaintiffs would feel satisfied if the liability is fixed upon defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and 5. 19. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of defendants Nos. I to 3 and 6 contends that the gas cylinder was taken from defendant No. 5 by the plaintiff No. 5 without the consent of defendant No. 5. It was due to the negligence of plaintiff No. 5 that-the cylinder fell down in the kitchen. The defendants are not liable for the acts or negligence or carelessness of plaintiff No. 5 or the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs took possession of the cylinder unauthorisedly and illegally, It is further contended that even according to plaintiffs evidence the plaintiffs are guilty of contributory negligence. The plaintiffs should not have given the hammer/small axe to defendant No. 5 and should not have allowed the lighted angithi to remain in the kitchen. She contends that firstly the acts of the plaintiffs were illegal and unauthorised and secondly in any case the defendants are not liable because the plaintiffs are guilty of negligence/contributory negligence. 20. I have considered the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties. 21. Gulam Mohamad defendant No. 5 (DW 1) states that he was entrusted with two gas cylinders to be installed in houses Nos. 11 and 12 of the building known as Busher House, Shimla. He installed one cylinder at house No. 1 and was searching to house No. 12, when an old man met him and told him that it was his house. House No. 11 of Busher House building is situate at Ram Bazar but for the installation of the second cylinder he went to the lower Bazar, Shimla where the plaintiffs were residing. According to him the cylinder was not to be installed at the residence of the plaintiffs. This, however, is not the case in the written statement. In para 5 of the point, it is specifically mentioned that the plaintiffs had booked a cylinder on 3/4th June, H75 and defendant No. 1 (company) sent a cooking gas cylinder to plaintiffs residence on 14th June, 1975. Defendants Nos. This, however, is not the case in the written statement. In para 5 of the point, it is specifically mentioned that the plaintiffs had booked a cylinder on 3/4th June, H75 and defendant No. 1 (company) sent a cooking gas cylinder to plaintiffs residence on 14th June, 1975. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 have admitted in the written statement that a gas cylinder was booked for replacement by plaintiff No. 1 and a gas cylinder through defendant No. 5 (DW1)was sent on 14-6-1975. The statement of Gulam Mohamad (DW 1) to that extent is not correct. It is thus proved that the gas cylinder which had burst at the residence of the plaintiffs was meant for being installed at plaintiffs house. 22. It is admitted that the gas cylinder sent for installation at the plaintiffs residence by defendant No. 1 through its agent (defendant No 5) caught—fire at a time when Smt. Brij Bala (PW 9), Shanti Sarup (PW 10). Shyama Nand (PW1) and Gulam Mohamad (DW 1) were present in the premises or near it. It is further admitted that all these persons received burn injuries, due to the bursting of the gas cylinder. 23. The next question to be determined is as to whether the delivery of the gas cylinder was taken by plaintiff No. 5 unauthorisedly and illegally iron defendant No. 5 or whether the cylinder remained in possession of defendant No. 5. According to the plaintiffs, the gas cylinder was kept by defendant No. 5 in the corridor (verandah) just near the door of the kitchen. He wanted to open the cap of the gas cylinder so as to enable him to fit the same with the L. P. G. stove by replacing the old empty cylinder. He could not open the cap and asked for some hammer like thing from Smt. Brij Bala (plaintiff No. 3). Smt. Brij Bala told him that the cylinder was not in order and should be taken back. Defendant No. 5, however, replied that it was his routine job and a small hammer like thing should be given to him for opening the same. Smt. Brij Bala told him that the cylinder was not in order and should be taken back. Defendant No. 5, however, replied that it was his routine job and a small hammer like thing should be given to him for opening the same. Upon the asking of defendant No. 5, Shanti Sarup Plaintiff No 2) gave a small axe which could also work as a hammer to defendant No. 5 and defendant No. 5 gave some hammer strokes on the cap of the cylinder inspite of protests of plaintiff No. 2. Within a short time the gas from the cylinder began leaking and it caught fire. According to the plaintiffs the accident was due to the carelessness and negligence on the part of the defendant No. 5 who was an authorised agent of defendant Nos. 1 to 4. 24. The defendants allege that the gas cylinder was to be installed in the kitchen of the plaintiffs, but at the relevant time when the defendant No. 5 reached the plaintiffs residence with the gas cylinder the plaintiffs were busy in taking their meals in the kitchen. The defendant No. 5 was asked to wait out side the kitchen just near the door. Defendant No. 5 Waited for some time, but as he was getting late, therefore, he requested the plaintiffs to get the cylinder installed by replacing the old empty cylinder. Upon this plaintiff No. 5 (a servant) came to defendant No. 5 and asked him to entrust the cylinder to him (plaintiff No. 5). Defendant No. 5 refused, but the plaintiff No. 5 took away the cylinder from the door. Thereafter a noise of the falling of the cylinder in the kitchen was heard. According to the defendants, the gas cylinder fell on the floor from the hands of the plaintiff No. 5 with the result that the same bursted and caught fire in which the plaintiffs and defendant No. 5 suffered burn injuries. 25. After going through the? evidence, I find that the version of the plaintiffs is correct. 26. Shri Surinder Kumar Chaudhary (defendant No. 2) (DW 2) states that he along with his brother are partners in the Himalya Gas Company (Defendant No. 1) and are local distributors of the gas cylinders. He received training for handling of gas cylinders and other equipments. evidence, I find that the version of the plaintiffs is correct. 26. Shri Surinder Kumar Chaudhary (defendant No. 2) (DW 2) states that he along with his brother are partners in the Himalya Gas Company (Defendant No. 1) and are local distributors of the gas cylinders. He received training for handling of gas cylinders and other equipments. Before employing any person as a delivery man, training is imparted to him and training is also imparted to the store-keeper who is involved in the method of stocking the cylinders and handling the cylinders. He also states that the gas cylinders are duly checked for leakage etc. before delivering the same to the delivery man, so that no mishap may occur. The delivery man is provided with a wrench for installing the new gas cylinder by replacement of the old gas c Under. Defendant No. 5 was imparted this training before his appointment as a delivery man. He was fully satisfied that defendant No. 5 was trained for the job. He further states that instruction cards are also issued to the customers so that they should not in any tamper with the cylinders or try to install them themselves. 27. Thus, according to Surinder Kumar (DW 2), defendant No. 5 was employed as a deliveryman and was trained in the installation of the filled gas cylinders by replacing the old empty cylinders. 28. Gulam Mohamad defendant No. 5 (DW 1) states that he was given training for this purpose and he used to carry a wrench for installing the cylinders at the premises of the customers. In case the cap of the cylinder was tight and could not be opened with a wrench then according to the instructions he was supposed to take back the cylinder to the good, 29. According to the defendants case the installation of the new gas cylinder by replacement of the old empty cylinder is to be done by a delivery agent of the defendants and the customers have no right or authority to touch the cylinders at the time of replacement. Now, if the gas cylinder was not to be handed over to any customer, then I