Back
KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandrashekaraiah, President;
Mrs. Rama Ananth & Mr. J.N. Srinivasa Murthy, Members
RANGE GOWDA & ORS.—Complainants
versus
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION & ANR.—Opposite Parties
Complaint No. 42 of 2001—Decided on 3.10.2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainants :Mr. M. Erappa Reddy, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No. 1 :Mr. B.K. Sridhar, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No. 2 :Mr. K. Pavan Kumar, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of legal representatives to maintain a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, and the determination of deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. in supplying the gas cylinder and its accessories.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Deficiency in Service - Section 2(b), Section 2(11), Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 - The court discussed the definition of 'complainant' under the Consumer Protection Act and the amendment allowing legal representatives of a deceased consumer to file a complaint. The court also considered the definition of 'legal representative' under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Fatal Accidents Act. The court held that the complainants, as legal representatives, were entitled to maintain the complaint under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The complainants, as legal representatives of the deceased, sought compensation for injuries and damage caused by a gas cylinder explosion. The O.Ps. denied liability, arguing that the complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainants, as legal representatives, were entitled to maintain the complaint under the Act. It held that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. in supplying the gas cylinder and its accessories, which resulted in causing damage to the persons and the property.
Issues: 1. Maintainability of the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. 2. Entitlement of the complainants for compensation due to deficiency in service by the O.Ps. 3. Relief to which the complainants are entitled.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definition of 'complainant' under the Consumer Protection Act and the amendment allowing legal representatives of a deceased consumer to file a complaint. It also considered the definition of 'legal representative' under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Fatal Accidents Act to establish the entitlement of the complainants to maintain the complaint. The court further analyzed the evidence to determine the deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
Final Decision: The complaint was allowed in part, and the O.Ps. were directed to pay jointly and severally Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation to the complainants within two months from the date of the judgment. The O.Ps. were also directed to pay interest at 12% per annum on the amount of Rs. 5,00,000 from the date of the complaint till realization, and to pay Rs. 5,000 to the complainants towards costs of the proceedings.
Mr. Justice Chandrashekaraiah, President—The complainants and one late Sri B.K. Raju are the children of late Venkatarangaiah @ Kempaiah and his wife Smt. Nanjamma. One late Smt. Vijayamma is the wife of late Sri B.K. Raju. Late Sri B.K. Raju who is the brother of the complainants along with his wife late Smt. Vijayamma, two minor daughters, namely Netravathi and Mamatha and his mother Smt. Nanjamma were residing in House bearing No. 23, 3rd Main Road, 2nd Cross, Kalyan Nagar, Bangalore. The said Sri B.K. Raju obtained a Cooking Gas Connection from opposite party (for short, the “O.P.”) No. 2, who is an agent of O.P. No. 1, which is the manufacturer of Gas Cylinders for domestic purpose. Due to leakage of the gas from the Cylinder, on 15.3.1999 when Smt. Vijayamma lit the fire-wood stove in the bath room by pouring kerosene, there was an explosion and fire spread to the entire house due to which all the above said persons were injured. In the said fire accident, the entire articles kept in the house, such as refrigerator, television, fans, cots, beds and utensils were burnt. The said accident was reported to the Police. Subsequently, the persons who were injured died on different dates due to the said accident. The case of the complainants is that there is a “deficiency in service” on the part of the O.Ps. in supplying the gas cylinder and its accessories which includes rubber tube and stove, which resulted in leakage of gas and consequently caused damage and injury to the persons and property and, therefore, they are entitled to claim compensation of Rs. 19,50,000 from the O.Ps.
2. O.P. No. 1 has filed its version relying upon the report of the LPG Equipment Research Centre and contended that the cylinders, pressure regulator and the S.C. Valves were in good condition and that the leakage of gas, if any, was due to the failure of the rubber tube and, therefore, O.P. No. 1 is not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the complainants. The further contention raised by O.P. No. 1 is that the complaint is not maintainable, as the complainants are not “consumers” within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the “Act”).
3. O.P. No. 2 has filed its objections and admitted that late Sri B.K. Raju was a consumer of L.P.G. under O.P. No. 1 but it has denied the leakage of gas from the cylinder. It is stated that late Smt. Vijayamma who is the wife of late Sri B.K. Raju lit the fire-wood stove in the bathroom by pouring kerosene as a result of which the fire was spread and that was the cause for the damage to the persons and the property. O.P. No. 2 has further denied that the rubber tube involved in the accident had not been purchased from O.P. No. 2 and, therefore, they are not liable for any loss or damage suffered by the complainants.
4. Both the complainants and the O.Ps. have filed their versions and affidavits and also filed documents, which are marked as exhibits in this case.
5. On the above said pleadings, the following points arise for consideration:
(1) Whether the complaint filed by the complainants is maintain-able under the Act?
(2) Whether the complainants are entitled for compensation establishing the fact of deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.?
(3) To what relief the complainants are entitloed?
6. Point No. 1 : The complainants are the brothers and sisters of late Sri B.K. Raju, who was a consumer of LPG having obtained a Gas Connection from O.P. No. 2 for domestic purpose by purchasing stove, rubber tube and other accessories. O.P. No. 1 is the manufacturer of the gas cylinders. According to the O.Ps., the complainants who are claiming to be the legal representatives are not “Consumers” so as to maintain a complaint under the Act. In support of this contention, the complainants relied upon the decision of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (for short, the “Tamil Nadu Commission”) in the case of Mrs. Hemlatha Saptharishi and Others v. I
