Back
UTTARANCHAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEHRADUN
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, President & Ms. Luxmi Singh, Member
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.—Appellant
versus
SHIV SHANKAR—Respondent
Appeal Nos. 912, 916 and 917 of 2003—Decided on 21.4.2004
Cases referred :
1. I (1998) CPJ 521. (Not applicable)
[Para 10]
2. (2002) 1 CLD 16 (SCDRC – Guj.). (Not applicable)
[Para 10]
3. 1993 (1) CPR 477. (Not applicable)
[Para 10]
4. I (1995) CPJ 53 (NC)=1995 (1) CCC 37 (NS). (Distinguished)
[Para 10]
The duty of the opposite party to lead expert evidence in cases of defective products and the principle of vicarious liability were established as central legal points in the judgment.
Headnote:
Defective Gas Cylinder - Consumer Rights - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 14(1)] - The court discussed the consumer's rights and liabilities under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, focusing on the duty of the opposite party to lead expert evidence in cases of defective products. The court emphasized the principle of vicarious liability, holding both the dealer and the supplier jointly liable for the consumer's losses.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a consumer of LPG connection, suffered a fire accident due to a defective gas cylinder supplied by the opposite parties, resulting in the loss of household articles and injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the opposite parties failed to provide expert evidence to refute the complainant's claims of a defective cylinder. It held both the dealer and the supplier jointly liable for the consumer's losses under the principle of vicarious liability.
Issues: The issues revolved around the liability of the opposite parties for the defective gas cylinder, the duty to lead expert evidence, and the quantum of damages claimed by the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of the opposite party to lead expert evidence in cases of defective products and upheld the principle of vicarious liability, holding both the dealer and the supplier jointly liable for the consumer's losses.
Final Decision: All appeals were dismissed, and the court upheld the compensation awarded to the complainant, emphasizing the joint liability of the dealer and the supplier for the consumer's losses.
Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, President—These are three connected appeals arising out of order dated 3.11.2003 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun whereby the complaint of the complainant for recovery of Rs. 44,000/- (Rupees forty-four thousand) for loss of household goods and also for compensation and cost of litigation and expenses of medicines was allowed.
2. The complainant, Sh. Shiv Shankar has filed an Appeal No. 916/2003, Sh. Shiv Shankar v. Manager, Sub-Area Gas Service, for the enhancement of compensation on the ground that the compensation as awarded by the learned Forum is inadequate. Indian Oil Corporation has filed Appeal No. 912/2003, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Sh. Shiv Shankar, for quashing the order alleging that there is no deficiency in service on their part and the Manager, Sub-area Gas Service has filed Appeal No. 917/2003, Manager, Sub-area Gas Service v. Sh. Shiv Shankar, for setting aside the order of the learned Forum. Since in all the appeals, common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, all these appeals are taken together for disposal. Copy of the judgment shall be placed in the records of all the appeals.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is admittedly a consumer of LPG connection, which is supplied by opposite party No. 1, Dehradun Sub-area Gas Service, who is the deal. Opposite party No. 2, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. is the company, which supplies the cylinders to the dealers for further supply to the customers. It is alleged that the complainant took a refilled gas cylinder on 10.3.1995. On 18.3.1995, when the gas cylinder, which was being used became empty, the gas cylinder purchased on 10.3.1995 was installed but as soon as the burner was tried to be burnt, it got fire. On 20.3.1995, the matter was reported to the opposite party No. 1. It is alleged that defective gas cylinder was supplied. It is further said that due to this fire, entire household articles of the complainant were burnt. The complainant has given a list of articles, so burnt. He has claimed a sum of Rs. 44,550/- (Rupees forty-four thousand five hundred fifty) for the loss of articles, Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) for mental pain and agony, Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lac fifty thousand) for disfiguration of applicant No. 1 and Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lac fifty thousand) for disfiguration of applicant No. 2, Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) as cost of litigation and Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) as expenses of medicines.
4. The opposite party No. 1 filed a telegraphic written statement and gave parawise reply. It is alleged that para 1 of the complaint is not relevant. Regarding para 2, supply of gas connection is admitted. Regarding para 3, sale of refilled gas cylinder on 10.3.1995 is admitted. Regarding para 4, it is said that it is not relevant to issue. In para 4 of the complaint, it is pleaded inter alia that since the complainant Sh. Shiv Shankar burnt match and lit the burner, it caught fire from burner and regulator and below that. It is said that this para is not relevant. It means that it is not denied. It means that it is admitted. In para 5 of the complaint, it is alleged that defective cylinder was given. This para is said to be false and it is alleged that all cylinders issued to the consumer are checked by concerned consumer is presence of gas agency staff. It is not said about the specific gas cylinder. Nothing has been said about this particular gas cylinder. In para 6 of the complaint, it is alleged that the complainant tried to extinguish the fire by putting water, sand, etc. but the cylinder started rotating on the ground and went in other rooms and burst. Reply to para 6 is not valid. What does it mean is not clear? It shall be deemed to have been admitted. The learned Counsel for the Gas Agency wanted to argue that such a cylinder could not rotate or dance. This argument is meaningless in view of this pleading. In para 7 of the complaint, it is a
