1.         This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.A/354/2012 dated 10.07.2015.  

2.       The case of the Complainant No.1/Respondent No.1 is that on 11.07.2009 his wife/Complainant No.2 suffered severe burn injuries due to gushing of fire which caught as soon as she removed the safety cap of gas cylinder No.3559781. His mother, on trying to help her, also got burnt. Both of them were taken to Ulubaria Sub-divisional hospital and then to SSKM Hospital, Kolkata. Complainant No.2 was advised plastic surgery. The kitchen also got totally burnt. Fire was extinguished by the fire brigade. On 17.07.2009, General Diary was also filed with Ulubaria Police Station. He alleged that the gas cylinder was last checked in October,1999, ten years before the untoward incident took place. Opposite Parties1, 2 & 3 and 4 did not inspect the cylinder before it was delivered and installed. A Complaint was sent to the Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation who sent a representative, but no action was taken. Respondent No.3 also did not respond to his Complaint. To cover the medical expenses, mental agony and litigation cost, Complaint was lodged by the Complainants with the following prayer: -

“a.  A direction may be  given to the O.P. No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the Complainant No.2 for her medical treatment.

b.     A direction may be given to the O.P. No.2 to pay sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to  the Complainant for her medical treatment.

c.     a direction may be given to O.P. No.2 to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the complainant No.1 and 2 for their damages.

d.     a direction may be given to the O.P. No.1 and 2 jointly pay sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for plastic surgery of the complainant No.2.

e.     A direction may be given to the O.P. No.1 and 2 to pay sum of Rs.3,00,000/- each to the complainant No.2 for the compensation/damage and for mental agony.

f.      a direction may be given to the O.P. No.1 & 2 to pay sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each for mental agony of the complainant No.2.

g.     a direction may be given to the Indian Oil Corporation that they shall not supply the domestic gas with the cylinder which is not built more than 5 years old.

h.     A direction may be given to the O.P. No.1 if their given man shall performed their statutory duty before handing over the cylinder to the customer.

i.      A direction may be given to O.P. No.1 and 2 to pay jointly sum of Rs.25000/- for the cost of case.

j.      Interim order.

k.     Local inspection.

l.      Any other relief and reliefs which the Complainants are entitled to get in law and in equity.”

3.       The Complaint was contested by the Opposite Parties. It was stated that the fire incident took place 32 days after the supply of the gas cylinder by Opposite Party No.2. Opposite Party No.1 denied that the accident took place due to defect in the cylinder and stated that on investigation by the Field Officer it was observed that the test date and the number were not legible due to the effect of fire on the cylinder. It was contended that the G.D. entry was made six days after the accident. All cylinders undergo comprehensive testing mechanism at the bottling plant before affecting supply to the distributors and onward transmission to the customers. Opposite Party No.4 conducted pre and post connection checking of regulator and oven and the Complainant had signed the same. An endorsement was also made on the refill slip to the effect that there was no leakage of the cylinder at the time of connection on 09.06.2009. Opposite Party No.1 was, therefore, not responsible for any deficiency in service. Opposite Parties 2 & 3 also filed separate replies and asserted that to cover up the suicide attempt on the part of the Complainant, the story of fire was fabricated. Fire could have been stopped by putting cap on the cylinder. Opposite Party No.4 in his written statement stated that Complainant No.2 was satisfied with the weight and safety of the cylinder at the time of delivery. Opposite Parties5, 6 & 9 did not contest the case and were declared ex-parte. Opposite Parties 7 & 8 prayed for expunction of their names from the cause title.

4.       The District Forum, after hearing both the parties, held Opposite Parties 1, 2 & 3 responsible for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and allowed the Complaint with following directions: -

    “That the C.C. Case No.32 of 2010 (HDF 32 of 2010) be allowed on contest with costs against all the O.P. nos. 1 and 2 & 3 and dismissed with without cost against the O.P. No.4 and ex parte against the rest without cost.

    The Complainants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.4 lacs (Rs.2 lacs each from the O.P. nos. 1 and 3) for prolonged medical treatment and Rs.5 lacs for plastic surgery from the O.P. No.1, Indian Oil Corporation, and Complainants are further entitled to a compensation of Rs.4 lacs (Rs.2 lacs each from the O.P. nos. 1 and 3) for prolonged mental agony, pain and sufferings. They are further entitled to a litigation cost of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.15,000/- each from the O.P. nos. 1 and 3)

    The O.P. No.1, Indian Oil Corporation shall further deposit a sum of Rs.1 lac to the West Bengal Consumer Welfare Fund for the benefit and welfare of the LPG consumers.

    The OPs be directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the Complainants and O.P. no. 1 to deposit the amount of Rs.1 lac to the Consumer Welfare Fund within 30 days from the date of this order failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum till full satisfaction.

    Be it further mentioned that the a mount of Rs.20,000/- if paid by the O.P. No.1 towards interim relief as per prayer of the complainants, be deducted from the total amount as saddled upon the O.P. No.1.”

5.       Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Opposite Parties 2 & 3 filed FA/354/2012 and Opposite Party No.1 filed FA/359/2012. The State Commission after hearing the parties, allowed the Appeal filed by the Distributor and held the Indian Oil Corporation deficient in service and ordered as follows: -

“That FA/354/12 be and the same is allowed by setting aside the impugned order so far as it relates to the Appellant/OP Nos.2 & 3. The Appellant in FA/359/12 being the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Shall pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the Respondents/Complainants as cost of medical treatment of Respondent No.2/Complainant No.2. A sum of Rs.15,000/- shall also be paid by the Appellant in FA/359/12 in favour of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/Complainants. Other parties of the impugned order shall be deemed to have been expunged. The said sum of Rs.4,15,000/- shall be paid by the Respondent No.4 in FA/354/12/Appellant in FA/359/12 to the Respondents/Complainants within a period of 40 days from the date of this order, failing which interest @ 9% shall accrue on the said amount from the date of this order. The impugned order is thus modified.”

6.       Brief facts of the case are that there was an accidental fire caused due to the leakage of the gas cylinder supplied to Respondents No.1 and 2/Complainants by the Petitioner and Respondents No.3 to 5/Opposite Parties 1 to 4. Respondent No.2 suffered burn injuries due to leaked gas from the cylinder catching fire, was hospitalized and incurred medical expenses. Respondents No. 1 & 2 in their Complaint stated that leakage of gas was due to the fact that the cylinder was defective. It was not properly checked by the Opposite Parties. No proper enquiry was conducted by Opposite Party No.1 to ascertain the truth in the Complaint. No expert Commission was appointed by them to ascertain the cylinder leakage, only to suppress their version of attempted suicide. The State Commission held that Opposite Party No.1 failed to establish the cause of the accident and the serious allegations against them and the question of the safety of the gas cylinder. An adverse inference was drawn against Opposite Party No.1. The contention of Opposite Party No.1 that the number and test date on the cylinder was not legible due to the effect of fire is not tenable in so far as they failed to provide any evidence disowning the issue of the said cylinder in any manner. State Commission was not convinced that Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Parties 2 & 3 were at par and discharged Opposite Parties 2 & 3 from any liability. Opposite Party No.1 was held solely responsible for the mishap and its consequences.

7.       The main issue is whether is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner or Respondents No.3 & 4 or both of them. Perusal of the material on record shows that no effort was made by the Petitioner to ascertain the reasons for the fire due to gushing of gas from the cylinder causing extensive burn injuries caused to Respondent No.2/Complainant No.2. No enquiry was conducted nor any report filed. No technical evidence has been led by the Petitioner regarding the possible cause of an otherwise defect free cylinder which was lying with the Petitioner for some time and it suddenly becoming defective and gas gushing out of the cap. No documentary evidence has been brought on record that there was any remote contributory negligence on the part of the Distributor/Respondents No.3, 4 & 5 nor the Complainants/Respondents No.1 & 2. Being the manufacturer, the onus lies totally on the Petitioner to conduct an enquiry and report on the defect. The State Commission, therefore, rightly allowed FA/354/2012, set aside the impugned order as far as it relates to Respondents No.3 & 4 and directed the Petitioner to make payment of compensation to Respondents No.1 & 2.

8.       In view of the above, deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner is clearly established. Petitioner has failed to point any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission, warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.