Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President and Dinesh Singh, Member
M/s. Azad Gas Services, Through Its Proprietor and Ors. —Appellants
versus
Peter Masih and Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal No.17 of 2012, First Appeal No.460 of 2012, First Appeal No.67 of 2012 and First Appeal No.763 of 2012
Decided on 4.1.2022

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. Ajaj Mahajan, Advocate
For the IOCL:Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate
For the National Insurance Co. Ltd.:Mr. G.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate
For the Azad Gas Agency:Mr. Arvind Mishra, Advocate with Ms. Archana Kumari, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Absence of Privity of Contract – absence of privity of contract is not a bar for maintaining a complaint against a service provider, by a third party who suffers an incident, which is otherwise covered by an agreement.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] – Services – Negligence – Death due to blast / outbreak of LPG Cylinder – Appeal is filed against order of State Commission whereby Opposite Parties were directed to pay jointly and severally the Compensation amount of Rs.10 lakh alongwith interest – Whether negligence can be attributed upon OP’s on the premise that there is an absence of privity of contract / Whether OP’s can be absolved from its liability on the thrust that there is an absence of privity of contract – On facts even the absence of privity of contract between OP No. 2 and Mrs. R (now deceased) does not help the OP No. 2 Indian Oil Corporation, in exonerating it from the liability to pay the compensation to the legal heirs of Mrs. R, who died due to blast of the LPG cylinder manufactured by the OP No.2, Indian Oil Corporation – Therefore, direct the OP No. 2 Indian Oil Corporation and OP No. 4 M/s New India Assurance Company, from which it had obtained Public Liability Policy, to pay jointly or severally lumpsum compensation of Rs.10 lakhs alongwith interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of accident till the date of realization. [Para 21, 22].
Result: Appeal dismissed.

ORDER

The present Appeals have been filed against the Order dated 22.09.2011 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred to as “State Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant was allowed and all the Opposite Parties were directed to pay jointly and severally the Compensation amount of Rs.10 lakh alongwith interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of the accident till realisation.

2. Brief facts of the case that the Mrs. Rooth (now deceased) wife of Mr. Peter Maish (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant No. 1) was having LPG connection with M/s. Azad Gas Service (hereinafter referred to as the OP No.1) who is the dealer/agent of Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the OP No.2), i.e., Manufacturer of the LPG Gas Cylinder. Mrs. Rooth was serving as Nurse at DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana and they have three children, i.e., Afrin (now deceased), Amone (hereinafter referred to as Complainant No.2) and Angel ((hereinafter referred to as Complainant No. 3). It is the case of the Complainants that while on 28.06.2005 at about 7:00PM when Mrs. Rooth was cooking meals in the kitchen using the LPG Gas cylinder supplied by OP No.1 and manufactured by OP No.2, suddenly there was a blast with deafening sound and in the said blast, the entire cylinder, utensils, acquaguard water purifier, slabs fittings and fixtures stood dismantled. The wife of the Complainant No.1 and daughter Afrin also died in the blast. The fact of the blast was reported to the OP No. 2 through OP No. 1, who sent the representative but did not offer condolence and rather threatened the Complainant No.1 not to take any action. Alleging defect in the cylinder and its component, Complaint claiming compensation was filed before the State Commission.

3. The Complaint was resisted by the OP Indian Oil Corporation but OP No. 1 Azad Gas Service did not appear before the State Commission. The State Commission proceeded exparte against OP No.1 Azad Gas Service and vide Order dated 30.04.2009 allowed the Complaint. In Appeal against the said Order, this Commission vide Order dated 12.04.2010 partly allowed the Appeal and remanded the Complaint to State Commission and passed the following Order:-

The appellant-M/s Azad Gas Service is granted one opportunity to file its written defence version before the State Commission subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost to the complainants. We direct the parties to appear before the State Commission on 10.05.2010. New India Assurance Company Limited will also file its defence version on the same date. After the written versions are filed, the parties will be free to lead evidence/further evidence. We expect the State Commission to decide the complaint as expeditiously as practicable.

Under the order dated 18.08.2009 of this Commission, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited has deposited the entire awarded amount with the State Commission and we gave liberty to the Complainant to withdraw the said amount subject to furnishing restitution security. The complainant No. 1 and his counsel state that the complainant has not able to withdraw the said amount as he was called upon by the State Commission to furnish bank guarantee though he was willing to which but could not furnish. In this regard, we may simply observe that vide order dated 18.8.2009, we had directed the State Commission to release the amount to the complainant on furnishing adequate security which did not necessarily imply that the State Commission should call for the bank guarantee for the same amount. Learned counsel for the complainants states that the complainant is in a position to furnish the collateral security for withdrawal of the said amount. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the said amount shall be released to the complainant No. 1, on furnishing adequate collateral security to the satisfaction of the State Commission. Amount deposited by the I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

IMPORTANT POINT Absence of Privity of Contract – absence of privity of contract is not a bar for maintaining a complaint against a service provider, by a third party who suffers an incident, which is otherwise covered by an agreement.

Judicial Analysis

IMPORTANT POINT
Absence of Privity of Contract – absence of privity of contract is not a bar for maintaining a complaint against a service provider, by a third party who suffers an incident, which is otherwise covered by an agreement.