Back
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BOMBAY
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.G. Loney,
President & Mrs. Ellen Dharkar, Member
SHIVANI SHEKHAR PARELKAR—Complainant
versus
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.—Opp. Parties
Complaint No. 390 of 1993—Decided on 3.12.1994
For the Complainant :Mr. Shirish Deshpande, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties :Mr. Patki, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties No. 2 :Mr. Palkhivala, Advocate. .
For the Opposite Parties No. 3 :Mr. Iqbal Yusuf & Mr. Chaphekar, Advocates.
The manufacturer and dealer of a defective gas cylinder are liable for the loss and injury suffered by the consumer as a result of the defective product.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION - SALE OF DEFECTIVE GAS CYLINDER - DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE - LIABILITY OF MANUFACTURER AND DEALER - COMPENSATION AWARDED.
Fact of the Case:
Complainant alleged that the services of the opposite parties 1 and 2 were grossly deficient and negligent, resulting in an accident caused by a defective gas cylinder, leading to the death of her husband and son and injuries to herself.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident occurred due to the leakage of gas from the cylinder supplied by the opposite party, either through the cylinder or the regulator, and that the opposite parties failed to prove their defense that the complainant was negligent in using the rubber tube.
Issues: Whether the services of the opposite parties were deficient in any manner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the opposite parties were liable for the defective sale of the gas cylinder and regulator, which caused the accident and resulted in the loss and injury suffered by the complainant.
Final Decision: The complaint was allowed, and the opposite parties were directed to jointly and severally pay the complainant a total compensation of Rs. 7,16,250/- within 30 days, along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. till realization. The complainant was also awarded Rs. 1000/- towards costs.
Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President—The complainant approached this Commission in this consumer dispute alleging sale of a defective Gas Cylinder by the opposite parties 1 and 2 as well as deficiency in the service of all the three opposite parties.
2. The brief facts of this complaint are as under:—
Admittedly the complainant has been a consumer of LPG Gas Services, having Consumer No. AW-17728 rendered by 1st opposite party-Bharat Petroleum Corporation through their local dealer, the 2nd opposite party.
Quick Gas Service. Admittedly on 6,11.1991 at about 6.45 a.m. there was accident at the residence of the complainant on account of the LPG Gas and in that accident complainant’s husband Shekhar, aged about 45 and complainant’s only son Gautam aged 12 years suffered burn injuries and subsequently died at Nanavati Hospital, Bombay. Complainant also suffered burn injuries.
3. The complainant alleged in this complaint that the services of the opposite parties 1 and 2 were grossly deficient and negligent.
4. The incident occurred at about 6.45 a.m. when Shekhar got up in the morning at 6.45 a.m. and went in the kitchen to light the cooking range with an electric lighter. Since the lighter was not properly working, Shekhar used the match box. The moment, the match stick was ignited suddenly there was a flash fire and he was engulfed with the flames. He screamed and rushed to the bed-room. At that moment he heard the loud explosion. As a result of explosion a glass pane of window broke. The fire spread in that bed room where Mrs. Paralkar and her son Gautam were coming out after hearing the explosion. They were also caught in the flames and suffered the burn injuries. Then the neighbourers rush at the site and the injured were taken to the Hospital Nanavati at Vile Parle. In the meantime, the fire brigade was summoned, who attended the spot of accident. The incident was also reported to Oshiwara Police Station at 8.20 a.m. The police conducted investigation and made spot panchanama. The statements of the witnesses were recorded by police. However, on 8.11.91, Shekhar died. On 11.11.91 Gautam died due to burn injuries. On the aforesaid premises the complainant alleged that the Gas Cylinder supplied by second opposite party on the previous day evening was defective inasmuch as it was leaking and as a result of leakage the incident in question occurred.
According to complainant the manufacture of the bottling of the cylinder supplied to complainant on 5.11.91 was defective having leakage through regulator. Since it was a mal functioning. The complainant alleged that she suffered injuries on her fingers due to fire and she lost her husband and the only son in the accident of fire due to the accident of Gas Cylinder. The complainant, therefore, claimed Rs. 12,00,000/- towards the compensation on account of the death of her husband, Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of the death of her son Gautam. She also claimed Rs. 3,00,000/- for the injuries suffer to her and Rs. 10,000/- towards the costs.
5. The opposite parties filed their written version separately, and denied the allegations as regards the defects of LPG Cylinder and the regulator; and also denied their liability about the payment of compensation. According to the opposite parties, the complainant’s husband Shekhar did not take due precaution before the lighting the gas. The main defence of the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 is that the complainant had two gas connections. One from HPCL and another from BPCL and was having only one rubber tube attached to the cylinder and the stove. It is the case of opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 that HPCL and BPCL is supplied different types of tubes to the consumers. If only one tube is used for the two gas cylinders, then there is a likelihood of leakage of gas and, therefore, the negligence if any is referrable to the complainant’s husband and not to the opposite parties. Therefore, the following question arise for our consideration:—
Whether the services
