Back
1984 Supreme(HP) 58
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
V.P.GUPTA
BHAGWANT SARUP - Appellant
Versus
HIMALYA GAS CO. - Respondent
C. S. No. 26 of 1976
Decided On : 08/07/1984
For the appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Shri D. D. Sood, Advocate. For the respondent(s) Miss Kamlesh Sharma, Advocate, for the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and 5. For the defendant No. 4.Shri H. K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
A gas company and its deliveryman are liable for injuries caused to a consumer due to a defective gas cylinder and the negligence of the deliveryman.
Headnote:
NEGLIGENCE - GAS CYLINDER BURST - LIABILITY OF GAS COMPANY AND DELIVERYMAN - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
A gas cylinder supplied by the defendant gas company to the plaintiffs' premises burst, causing injuries to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs alleged that the cylinder was defective and that the deliveryman was negligent in handling it. The defendants denied liability, alleging that the plaintiffs were guilty of contributory negligence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the gas cylinder was defective and that the deliveryman was negligent in handling it. The court also found that the plaintiffs were not guilty of contributory negligence.
Issues: 1. Whether the gas cylinder was defective and the deliveryman was negligent in handling it. 2. Whether the plaintiffs were guilty of contributory negligence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the gas company and the deliveryman were liable for the plaintiffs' injuries. The court found that the gas cylinder was defective and that the deliveryman was negligent in handling it. The court also found that the plaintiffs were not guilty of contributory negligence.
Final Decision: The court awarded damages to the plaintiffs.
V. P. Gupta, J.—Plaintiff No. 1 (Bhagwant Sarup) was registered as a consumer No. F/487 with defendant No. 1 (M/s. Himalya Gas Company) for the supply of cooking gas. A gas connection was installed in his premises known as 141, Malhotra Building, Lower Bazar, Simla. The cooking gas cylinders used to be supplied by defendant No. I through its trained workmen and servants who used to replace old empty gas cylinder by installing a new g
2. The plaintiffs allege that they had booked replacement of a gas cylinder with defendant No. 1 on 3/4th June, 1975 because their previous gas cylinder had exhausted. Defendant No. 1 sent a cooking gas cylinder through defendant No. 5 (Gulam Mohamed) on 14-6-1975 at about 2.20 p. m. Defendant No. 5 kept the cylinder in the corridor and asked the plaintiffs to give some instrument for opening the cylinder and got a small axe meant for breaking fire wood and coal etc. It is alleged that defendant No, 5 gave two or three knocks to the gas cylinder which appeared to be defective. Plaintiff No. 3 (Brij Bala) asked defendant No. 5 to take back the gas cylinder as the same was defective but defendant No. 5 told her that it was his routine job and the gas cylinder would be replaced and fitted. As a result of the knocking, some serious damage was caused to the gas cylinder with the result that liquid gas started leaking out and within a few seconds it caught fire because in the kitchen which adjoins the corridor, a fire was burning. Defendant No. 5 after seeing the fire gave a kick to the gas cylinder towards the door thereby blocking the exit from the premises. He himself fell outside the door. Plaintiffs Nos. 2, 3 and 5 saw the fire and they jumped out of the room from the windows because the door was blocked. Plaintiff No. 4 and one Kumari Seema deceased (daughter of plaintiff No. 1) remained inside the room. Plaintiff No. 2 wanted to rescue both these girls but could rescue plaintiff No. 4 only. Kumari Seema deceased was found dead in the room after the fire had been put off by the fire-brigade.
3. It is alleged that plaintiff No. 3 was in advanced stage of pregnancy. She suffered serious burn injuries on her face, neck and head, right and left arms, chest and abdomen, thighs and legs and her hair were also burnt. She remained admitted in the hospital but inspite of the medical treatment she could not recover her normal health and was dis-figured permanently. She suffered mentally and physically and is permanently unfit to discharge her normal duties. Plaintiff No. 2 also received burn injuries on his face, both hands and both legs and blisters on right calf and remained admitted in the hospital for treatment. Plaintiff No. 4 also remained admitted in the hospital because she also received burns on her legs, hands abdomen and back and her hair were also burnt. Plaintiff No. 5 also got burns and remained admitted in the hospital,
4. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 are real brothers while plaintiff No. 3 is the wife of plaintiff No. 1 and plaintiff No. 4 is the minor daughter of plaintiff No. 1. Plaintiff No, 5 is the servant with plaintiff No. 1.
5. The plaintiffs allege that they have suffered the burn injuries on account of the negligence and carelessness of defendant No. 5 in performance of his duties. They also allege that merchandise goods stored by them in an adjoining room of the house were totally burnt and other goods were also burnt in fire. The plaintiffs have claimed the following losses as detailed in Para 14 of the plaint : (i) Shri Bhagwant Sarup : (a) For the death of his child Kumari Seema. Rs. 10,000 (b) For the loss of health of his wife. Rs. 5,000 (c) For mental torture suffered by him. Rs. 5,000 (d) For expenses incurred on treatment of sufferers. Rs. 3,000 (e) For cost of household effects burnt. Rs. 24,000 (f) For replacement of new articles. Rs. 6,000 (g) For value of his share of cloth burnt. Rs. 8,000 (h) For loss of business. Rs. 1,500 Rs. 62,500 (ii) Brij Rate : (a) For the dea
