DAYANAND A. AVASARE VS BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMERS DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW BOMBAY
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President;
Mr. M.G. Gavai, Member & Smt. Ellen Dharkar, Member
SHRI DAYANAND A. AVASARE—Complainant
versus
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.—Opp. Parties
Complaint No. 39/90—Decided on 12.6.1991

Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2 and 14 - Consumer - L.P.G. consumer of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. - A consumer of the goods and necessary service in respect of L.P.G. cylinder in question. (Para 6)
       (ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2 & 14 - Defective Goods" Supply of gas cylinder containing excessive gas - Amounts to supply of defective goods, which is deficiency in service. (Gas Cylinder Rules, 1981 - Rules)
       Held: The relevant factor in deciding the Consumer Dispute, we have to consider whether the goods so supplied was defective and there was deficiency in the service rendered by the Opposite Parties. Since we have already held that the gas cylinder in question was defective and there was deficiency in the service of the Opposite parties, and also that there was negligence on the part of the mechanic to render the service to the complainant, we have to hold that the complainant has proved his allegations. When the gas contained in the cylinder was obviously dangerous to life, the mechanic should have taken the safety precautions. In our view, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to provide the domestic gas to the consumer with due care and precautions and the service be rendered keeping in view the safety precautions provided under the Rules. The manufacturer has to keep in mind the likelihood of any accident while using the LPG cylinder and anticipating such contingency to take necessary precautions while rendering the services to the consumer. In any case in our view, the service rendered to the complainant was deficient, which has resulted into accident in the present case:(Para 13)
       (iii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2 and 14 - Deficiency in service - Gas cylinder accident - Claim for compensation Supply of gas cylinder containing excessive gas - Gas was ejected by the mechanic in the kitchen room - The excess gas got ignited when complainants wife lighted the gas stove - Fire - Death of his wife - Burn injuries to his son and the mechanic - Negligence of service of, Opposite parties - Compensation for the loss and injury suffered by the claimant - Award of Rs.2,99,210/-.
       Held: (I) To the Complainant:
       (l) Rs. 27,050/- :Towards the hospital charges for the treatment of Shobhana A. vasare and Mr. Umesh Avasare.
       (2) Rs. 18760/-:Towards charges for sister.
       (3) Rs. 2100/- :Towards the conveyance expenses.
       (4) Rs. 2,50,000/-:Towards loss of consortium due to the death of
       Shobhana.
        (5) Rs. 300/- :Towards the incidential expenses of the complainant.
       Rs. 2,99,210/-
       We would also lib to award Rs. 255/- towards cost to Mumbai Grahak Panchayat who pursued the cause of complainant through its representative Shri Shirish Deshpande, to be paid by the Opposite Party. (para 22)
       (iv)Delay - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14 - Gas Cylinder Accidents - Insurance Policy covering third party risk - Compensation claim filed with the dealer - Duty of the dealer to pursue the claim with the Insurance Company to settle the claim - Apathy shown by the dealer and the insurer is unpardonable. (Para 20)
       Result: Compensation claimed granted accordingly, Complaint allowed.
       IMPORT ANT POINT
       A LPG cylinder containing excessive gas above the permissible limit is defective goods and there is deficiency in service on the part of the dealer and the manufacturer in supplying such gas cylinders to the consumers without keeping in view the safety precautions provided under the Gas Cylinder Rules.

ORDER

This complaint is unique in its nature and is arising out of an incident in which a house-wife lost her life in domestic gas fire. The unfortunate complainant is the husband of the deceased woman who lost her life on 8.4.1990 in the incident which is the subject matter of this complaint.

2. The brief facts relating to the incident in question are that the complainant is an employee as a driver with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. He was living with his wife-Shobhana Avasare since deceased and son-Umesh in a flat at Vile-Parle. The complainant was having a connection of 2 LPG for domestic use vide Consumer No. 2837 registered with M/s. Sheelvik Agencies, Juhu, Bombay manufactured by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Opposite Party No. 1). Thus, the complainant claims to be a consumer of LPG service of opposite parties 1 & 2. is alleged in the complaint that on 30.1.1990, Umesh, the son of complainant connected the gas pipe to the new cylinder manufactured by Opposite Party No. 1. The wife of the complainant-Shobhana tried to start the burner of the gas stove but it could not be lighted and was getting extinguished every now and then. Ultimately, she requested her son-Umesh to requisition the services of the mechanic of Sheelvik Agencies (Opposite Party No. 2). In response to the call of Umesh, Mr. Hukumsing, the Mechanic in the employment of Opposite Party No. 2 arrived at the residence of the complainant. He tried to light the gas stove, but could not do so. After examining the gas cylinder and burner he opined that the LPG cylinder was excessively filled with gas. According to Mr. Hukumsing, the gas cylinder was containing excessive gas and therefore it is not getting lighted, Mr. Hukumsing removed the screw driver and pressed the pin of the LPG gas cylinder valve and ejected the excessive gas in the kitchen itself. When Shobhana questioned the ejectment of the excessive gas from the cylinder in the kitchen itself, he told her that it was necessary to do so in order to operate the gas stove. The mechanic advised Shobhana to light the burner after few minutes. According to the complainant, when his wife lighted the stove after 10 to 15 minutes, suddenly fire broke out in which her clothes started burning. Mr. Umesh went to her rescue and he also received burn injuries. The mechanic — Hukumsing also suffered burn injuries in the same incident. They were taken for burn treated in the K.E.M. Hospital. However, Shobhana expired on 30.1.90 due to burn injuries in the Jaslok Hospital. The complainant had by a letter dated 9.3.90 complained to the Opposite Party No. 2 with a copy to Opposite Party No. 1 about the incident of fire due to the negligence on the party of Hukumsing in ejecting gas in kitchen and demanded interim relief for the medical treatment of his wife. The said letter was received by Opposite Parties but no action has been taken. The complainant did not receive any communication from Opposite Parties and, therefore, he lodged the present complaint claiming Rs. 9,50,000/- toward compensation on various counts. According to the complainant the incident occurred due to the faulty procedure and negligent service rendered by the mechanic of M/s. Sheelvik Agencies by ejecting the LPG gas in the kitchen itself without any care of safety precautions. The complainant further alleged that the said mechanic was not duly trained in examining and correcting the complaints of the consumers of gas cylinders. In short, the complainant alleged that the goods so supplied by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 to the complainant was “defective” and that there was “deficiency” in the service of the Opposite Parties.

3. A notice u/Sec. 13 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act was sent to the Opposite Party along with the copy of the complaint. In response to that notice, the Opposite Parties submitted their written versions. The Opposite Party No. 1, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. in its affidavit dated 25.10.90 has objected to the jurisdic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday