SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 31439

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Manga Nagesh – Appellant
Versus
1. M/s. Gurudatta Gas Service – Respondent
SC/36/CC/159/2015



DISPUTES BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER REDRESSAL COMMISsION:HYDERABAD C.c.159/2015 Between:

1.Manga Nagesh, S/o.Manga Bondaiah, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Labour, Hand Cart Puller, R/o.H.No.3-3-549, Near Ammavari Temple, Bharatnagar Colony, N.T.R.Nagar,L .B.Nagar, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R.District.

2. Manga llaiah, S/o.Late Manga Bondaiah, Aged about 54 years, R/o.Block No.B-59, Flat No.395 F, Singareni Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad.

(2nd complainant impleaded as per the order Dt.19.8.2022 in 1.A.No.912/2022)

3. Aree Savithra, D/o.late Manga Bondaiah, W/o.Aree Venkateswarlu, aged 52 years, R/o.H.No.3-13-340, Bharath Nagar, Chinthalkunta, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, R.R.Disitrct.

4. Danamma, D/o. Late Manga Bondaiah, W/o.Venkatesh, aged 46 years, R/o.H.No.3-13-428,B har Nagar, L.B.Nagar,S aroornagar, Hyderabad, R.R.District.

(Complainants 3 8& 4 are impleaded as per the Order dt. 19.8.2022 in I.A.No. 1204/2022) ...Complainants And

1.M/s.Gurudatta Gas Services, Indane Gas Dealer, # 11-13-201/3, Road No.4, Green Hills Colony, Hyderabad -500 035.

2. M/s.Indian Oil Corporation LTD. (Yashoda Indane Service), State Office:6-1-138/12/A, H.No.1, Ground Floor, Sujatha Apartments, Padmaraonagar, Secunderabad.

3. M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Indian Oil Bhavan, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra ( East), Mumbai - 400 051.

4. M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Tilak Roads, Abids, Hyderabad.

(Opp.party no.4 is impleaded as per the order

1026/2016)

in CCIA.

Dt8.6.2017 Limited, Company Insurance United Manager, 5. M/s. by its Divisional Represented Tilak Road, Building, Church DO-V, ....Opposite Parties Church Building, Abids, Hyderabad. the order as per is impleaded no.5 (Opp.party 1246/2016)

in CCIA.

Dt.8.6.2017 Rao.

Mr.A.Narasimha Counsel for the Complainants: Sudarshan Reddy -OP.1.

M/s.D.

Counsel for the Opposite Parties: M/s.Shireen Sethna Baria-OPs.2

8 3.

Mr.K.V.Rao-OP.4.

Mr.V.Srinivasa Rao-OP.5.

Jaiswal, President.

cORAM: Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S.K.

And Lady Member Hon'ble Smt. Meena Ramanathan, TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWO.

Oral Order: (Hon'ble Smt. Meena Ramanathan, Lady Member) 1. This is a complaint filed by the ComplainantS under Section 17(1)(a)i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to compensation of direct the Opposite parties to pay Rs.65,00,000/-( Rs.26 lakhs towards hospital expenses and Rs.39 lakhs towards death compensation of Smt.Manga Salamma- the mother of the complainants) and to pay Rs.25,000/- towards costs.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

The complainants submit that there was a pooja in their relative's house (who was also a neighbour/relative of complainant no.1 and customer of opposite party no.1). It so happened that during the function, food was being prepared and the cylinder needed to be replaced. Mr.Yellesh- their relative and customer of opposite party no.1, opened the seal of the refill cylinder, and immediately the gas gushed out with great pressure. In utter shock and fear Yellesh tried to throw the cylinder in an open drain nearby, but the cylinder accidentally burst, causing serious burn injuries to the complainants'mother ( aged 65 years). Complanant no.1's wife and young son were also injured in the said incident.

The injured were immediately shifted to Omni Hospital, Kothapet. The complainants' mother succumbed to the injuries. Complainant no.l's wife received 22% burns and son 39% burns. They further contends that due to the defective cylinder supplied by the opposite parties, immense hardship and severe Although they monetary loss has been sustained by them.

several occasions for approached the opposite parties on responded. Hence, filed compensation, they have not complied or reliefs.

the present complaint seeking the necessary

3. Opposite party no.1 - the dealer filed their written version denying the allegations leveled against them by stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part. The incident occurred purely due to the improper handling and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top