The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of 'res ipsa loquitur' to establish negligence and liability in cases of defective products, and the joint and several liability of the manufacturer and dealer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Mr. Justice M.B. Shah, President—This complaint is made against M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation (opposite party No. 1) and M/s. Pelicon Gas Agency (opposite party No. 2), alleging deficiency in service in supplying a defective LPG cylinder to the complainants. It is contended that there was leakage of gas after refixing the regulator. The gas leakage was such that there was no peculiar smell which is conspicuous when the gas is being emitted or leaked. When the gas stove was sought to be lit by lighter by Shri Suresh Kumar Govilkar, husband of the complainant No. 1, the emitted gas and the cylinder caught fire which spread all throughout resulting in the death of Shri Suresh Kumar Govilkar. Hence this complaint is filed by his wife, his son and his daughter, claiming a compensation of Rs. 25,62,500, and also award of interest on the amount from the date of the notice dated 31st October, 1995.

2. It is pointed out that Shri Suresh Kumar Govilkar was a consumer of LPG manufactured by the opposite party No. 1 and was registered with the dealer respondent No. 2. The LPG cylinder for usage was supplied at the residence of the complainants, namely, 204, Pocket-D, Mayur Vihar, Delhi. On 26.8.1995 the LPG cylinder which was in use was exhausted and Shri Suresh Kumar Govilkar replaced the empty cylinder with a spare cylinder which was supplied by respondent No. 2 for a consideration on 12.8.1995 (which had been earlier booked on 3.8.1995). While the regulator was being fitted to the replaced cylinder Shri Govilkar and the Complainant No. 1 heard some sound which was greater than the usual sound. Thereafter, the regulator was fixed. It is also pointed out that at the relevant time there was no peculiar smell which is conspicuous when the gas is emitted or when there is leakage of gas. When Govilkar started lighting the gas for preparation of tea, there was fire and within no time the fire spread. Shri Govilkar caught fire and raised alarm. Thereafter, fire was brought under control with the help of certain people. But, the cylinder was still burning in the kitchen. It is contended that the cylinder was found burning all around the periphery of the bottom lip of the regulator with a dense yellow flame of approximately 9 inches in length and this could be only because of the defect in the cylinder. Information was given to the Police and Shri Govilkar was taken to hospital where he expired on 30.8.1995.

3. It is contended that: (i) Shri Govilkar died as a result of fire caused by defective gas cylinder supplied on 12.8.1995; (ii) by letter dated 30.8.1995 opposite party No. 2 informed the National Insurance Company Ltd. (opposite party No. 3) that an accident had occurred and Shri Govilkar had suffered serious burn injuries. It was specifically stated in the said letter that LPG cylinder caught fire and that insurance taken by the agency covers such an accident. Therefore, it was requested to process the said matter; (iii) again, by letter dated 31.8.1995 the gas agency informed the Manager of the Insurance Company that due to accident on 26.8.1995 Shri Govilkar had expired on 31.8.1995. It was specifically stated therein that the said letter was written for information and that the insurance claim would be lodged shortly; (iv) on 31.8.1995 the Insurance Company informed the gas agency that the nature of the claim due to LPG accident was covered by the policy, and, requested the gas agency to appraise the Insurance Company of any such monetary claim being lodged with them. However, in the said letter it is mentioned: “You are advised not to make any admission of compensation without our prior consent.”

4. Thereafter, on 8.11.1986 the gas agency received a notice from the wife of Govilkar and that notice was also forwarded to the Insurance Company.

5. On 5.2.1996, the Insurance Company informed the gas agency that the matter was referred to higher office for compensation.

Submissions:

6. From the aforesaid facts it is contended that th