Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
A. P. Sahi, President and Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member
Lakshmaiah – Complainant
versus
Man Singh and Anr. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.911 of 2015
Decided on 25.10.2024
Death caused by negligence in performance of AC service & Repair – Vicarious liability of negligence on repairing mechanics & landlord – Res-ipsa Loquitur – Complainant alleged negligence on the part of repairing mechanics & allegations of liability on landlord, O.P. No. 1 & OP No. 2 Trading company through its proprietor as he had sent mechanics for repair & services – Mechanics seem to have commenced repairs on their own individual assessment & while probing the nature of defect or carrying out repairs that the blast occurred – There is no evidence except the allegation of complainant that the operations had been commenced by mechanics without putting off the switch – There is no expert evidence or any other evidence except this bald allegation – It is a matter of investigation & probe to discover the causes & there is no evidence signifying exact nature of negligence – There is no evidence that OP No.2 was aware of the nature of defect or proposed repair – This was exclusive to mechanics – Mechanic was not unprofessional & was possessed of ordinary skills required of AC Mechanic to carry out repairs – OP No.2 cannot be held liable for sending somebody who did not know anything about the repairs of air conditioner or risks involved therein – No knowledge can be attributed to OP No.2 about any possible defects of air conditioner which does not seem to have been acquired from his shop – There is no evidence as to what is exactly directed to be done by OP No.2 & therefore, element of any performance of job involving risk of blast cannot be attributed directly on OP No.2 in absence of any material to hold that mechanics had been called upon to perform repairs in particular way so as to contribute towards any possible negligence – Unfortunately deceased-mechanic died in the accident but order of Commissioner under WC Act did record his relationship & employment with OP No.2, which has been affirmed upto Apex Court – Theory of res ipsa loquitur can be invoked – Deceased lost his life alongwith another mechanic on account of blast that occurred during repair work of air conditioner – Tortious act & actual tort feasor namely, mechanic who lost his life seems to have been sent by OP No.2, deceased mechanic found to be in employment of OP No.2 – Nature of employment is also that of AC mechanic on salary – In such a situation, OP No.2 as an employer can be treated to be having knowledge about competence of mechanics sent to perform repair work of air conditioner – Service rendered for repairs by OP No.2 by all reasonable standards & evidence on record is established – There is a connect of job performed by mechanics & cause of death of deceased is clearly connected with blast that occurred during such performance – OP No.2 cannot escape from vicarious liability – Nothing to indicate any billing or profits earned by OP No.2 from repair work – Extent of liability on OP No.2 has to be minimal & Not disproportionate – With evidence of record & fact of connect of services rendered through deceased mechanic, lump sum of Rs.10 lacs deserves to be awarded against OP No.2 to be paid by him to complainant in lieu of vicarious liability. (Paras 26, 27, 28, 30, 31,
32, 36, 46, 47 to 54)
Result: Complaint allowed.
ORDER
A.P. Sahi, President.—This is an unfortunate case pertaining to the loss of life of the complainant’s son who was a bright student and was undertaking coaching classes for the Civil Services. For his stay and studies, he had rented an accommodation which he was sharing with two of his friends. The accommodation had an air-conditioner installed in it which needed repairing and servicing for which the services were availed of and while the air-conditioner was being serviced, a blast occurred as a result whereof the complainant’s son and one of the repairing mechanics suffered serious burn injuries and both of them expired. According to the narrative, there were two mechanics and the other one also suffered injuries but he survived.
2. The surviving mechanic Sanjay Kumar son of Amarjeet Singh gave a statement to the police on the date of the incident i.e. 30.04.2014 while in hospital in an injured state and the said statement was converted into an FIR lodged at Police Station Kirti Nagar, District West Delhi.
3. The complainant who is the father of the deceased student L. Santosh, filed this complaint alleging negligence on the part of the repairing mechanics and also made allegations of liability on the landlord, the opposite party no.1 Mr. Man Singh, and allegations of vicarious liability on the opposite party no.2 M/s Madras Trading Co. through its proprietor Mr. Sukhpreet Singh as he had sent the mechanics for carrying out the repair and services.
4. The FIR narrates the earliest information that was recorded therein. Sanjay Kumar who was one of the mechanics injured in the blast, is stated to have narrated, that he and another colleague one Mr. Tata were asked by the owner of M/s Madras Trading Co. to visit the premises in question for re-filling of the gas in the compressor of the air-conditioner. The FIR also narrates that the informant had asked the owner that he was only class VIII passed and therefore another technician should also be sent but the owner insisted that the work has to be done only by him and his other colleague Mr. Tata. It is also narrated that the air-conditioner was a second hand air-conditioner which according to the informant had been purchased from M/s Madras Trading Co. The statement further narrates that while the coil was being welded, the blast occurred resulting in the injuries to all three including the informant and Mr. Tata.
5. The present complaint was filed on 18.08.2015 where-after the landlord, the opposite party no.1, filed his written statement and made the following averment in paragraph-5 thereof.
“5. That the contents of para 5 of the complaint are wrong and denied. It is denied that the on 30.04.2014, since the air conditioner of the rented premises required repairing and servicing the 1st respondent called M/s Madras Trading Company (a proprietary concern of one Shri Sukpreet Singh engaged in the servicing, repair and sales of Air Conditioner and hereinafter referred to as the 2nd respondent) for servicing and repairing the air conditioner. It is also denied that the said air conditioner fitted on the rented premises was a used one purchased by 1st respondent from the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that the premises was rented without air conditioner on 28.07.2013 and no air conditioner was fitted on 28.7.2013 and no air conditioner was fitted on 28.07.2013 in the premises. It is further submitted that providing air conditioner was not part of the tenancy agreement dated 28.07.2013 executed between answering respondent and Mr. Sanjay Aski alongwith complainant’s son and Mr. Jasvinder Singh. It is submitted that Mr. Sanjay Aski along with complainant’s son and Mr. Jasvinder Singh purchased the second hand air conditioner and fitted the same in the rented premises without the permission and knowledge of the answering respondent. And further to make it functional/operational they called the mechanics from the nearby shops i.e. respondent No.2 for getting it serviced /repaire
Vicarious Liability – Question of vicarious liability is a mixed question of fact & Law.
The court established that an employer-employee relationship must exist for liability under the Workmen Compensation Act, and negligence can lead to tort liability even without such a relationship.
An employer can be held vicariously liable for an employee's intentional wrongdoing if closely connected to their employment; contributory negligence is not a defense in fraud cases.
Principal employers cannot evade liability for employee compensation under statutory provisions, despite contractual exemptions, as the rights of workmen supersede such agreements.
Liability for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act requires proof of negligence, which was established as brake failure in this case, resulting in dismissing the appeal.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of strict liability and the doctrine of 'res ipsa loquitur' to hold the Defendants liable for compensation due to the foreseeabl....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
