2007 (1) CPR 401 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
M.B. Shah, President; Mrs. Rajyalakshmi
Rao, Member
Mrs. Madhuri Govilkar & Ors.—Complainants
versus
M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
& Ors.—Opposite Parties.
Original Petition No. 289 of 1996
Decided on 3-10-2006

IMPORTANT POINT
Accident by supply of defective gas cylinder is proved. Compensation is awarded on the basis of maxim ‘res ipsa loquitur’ and liability is joint and several of manufacturer and dealer.

Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(b)—Defect in goods—Supply of defective LPG cylinder—Consumer was an engineer—When he started replacement of regulator he heard some unusual sound but no smell of leakage—When lighter used for tea making it caught fire and burnt him and later died—Whether doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies with regard to defective gas cylinder being supplied? (Yes) 1994(1) SCC 690 followed. (Paras 13 to 16)—Whether there was a breach of duty not to replace regulator without calling someone from dealer? (No) (Paras 17, 18)—Whether a case of attempted repair prohibited in Clause 5 of Supply? (No) (Para 19)—Whether conduct of OP shows it was a defective cylinder? (Yes)—(Para 20)—Conduct of Insurance Company to insured “keep us informed about any monetary claims lodged on you. You are also advised not to make any admission of compensation without our prior consent”—Whether justifiable? (No)—Result—Cylinder was defective stands proved.

       Held: In our view, this shows a typical negative approach on the part of the officers of the Insurance Company and such type of preparation of false defence increases the litigation in this country. In any case, such defence on the part of the Nationalised Insurance Company is totally unjustifiable.

       Thereafter, the gas Agency informed the Insurance Company about the legal notice received by it. To that, the officers of the Insurance Company informed that the matter was referred to higher office and on hearing from them they would decide.

       From the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that the gas cylinder supplied by the Opposite Party No. 2 was defective, and, therefore, the Opposite Party No. 2 would be liable to compensate the Complainants for the loss suffered by them due to the death of Shri Govilkar, husband of Complainant No. 1 and father of the rest of the Complainants.

        (Paras 22, 23 and 24)

       (ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(d) and (b) and 14(1)(h)—Compensation for loss caused by supply of defective LPG Gas Cylinder—Death—Who is liable—Manufacturer and dealer jointly and severally—Complainant can recover from OP2 and OP2 from OP1—Case of manufacturing defect and supply of deficient—(2004) 2 SCC 278 relied and (1994) 1 SCC 397 distinguished. (Paras 25 to 31)

       (iii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 14(1)(d)—Quantum of compensation—Death—Yearly income Rs. 1,26,000 —Net Rs. 84,000 p.a. —Multiplier 12—Entitled to Rs. 10,08,000 as against claim of over Rs. 25 lacs—Complaint allowed accordingly.

       Held: In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the income of the deceased. It is pointed out that his salary was Rs.10,500 per month. He was a highly qualified Engineer and was working as Assistant Director in the office of the Director General, Civil Aviation, New Delhi. He was also on the approved list of the United Nations Voluntary and International Civil Aviation Organization as a technical expert. If we take his yearly income, it would be Rs. 1,26,000 (10,500 x 12).

       Presuming that he was spending 1/3rd for himself, his family was depending on his remaining 2/3rd income i.e. Rs. 84,000. Considering his age as 47 and his future prospects, and the remaining years of service, applying the multiplier of 12, the complainants are entitled to recover Rs.10,08,000 from the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2. It would be open to the Opposite Party No. 2 to recover the sum assured from the Insurance Company-Opposite Party No. 3.

       In the result, the Complaint is allowed. Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to pay the amount of Rs.10,08,000 jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to pay the said amount within eight weeks from the date of the order. It would be open to the Opposite Party No. 2, M/s. Pelicon Gas Agency, to recover the sum assured from the Respondent No. 3, Insurance Company, with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. The Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2 are also directed to pay costs to the Complainants quantified at Rs.5,000. (Paras 32 and 33)

       Result: Complaint allowed accordingly.