1. This appeal is directed against the order of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Commission, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission) dated 21.08.2014 in CC/38/2012. 2. Alongwith the Appeal, IA/7460/2018, application for condonation of delay of 17 days has been filed. For the reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned. 3. Case of the Complainant is that on 06.02.2012, the Complainant connected the burner with new gas cylinder. After two days only i.e. 08.02.2012, the cylinder stopped working and some black liquid was leaking from of the cylinder. The Complainant contacted the distributor, who advised the Complainant to make a Complaint to LPG Emergency Service. They sent a mechanic for inspection, who found that black liquid was leaking from the cylinder and prepared the inspection report. The Complainant wrote a letter to the Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation on 10.02.2012, but in vain. Being deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission with the following prayer: - “a. Award for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of life and property as stated in paragraph 23 above. b. Award for a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- on account of compensation for adopting unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as stated in paragraph 23 above. c. Award for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of mental agony and litigation cost as stated in paragraph 23 above. d. Award for interest and interest on judgment at the rate of 18 percent per annum. e. Award for the costs of and incidentals to the proceedings. f. Further or other relief or reliefs.” 4. The Opposite Parties contested the Complaint by filing written statement. They denied the allegations stating that after obtaining the inspection report, they provided a new gas cylinder to the Complainant free of cost in replacement of the alleged defective cylinder. They requested the Complainant to return the defective cylinder for making proper inspection, but the Complainant refused to return the cylinder. The allegation of filling of water in the cylinder could not be ascertained. Opposite Party No.3 filed separate written version and denied all the allegations. Opposite Parties pleaded that the Complaint was baseless and the same be dismissed. 5. State Commission after hearing learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record, found deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and allowed the Complaint in part. Complaint against Opposite Party No.3, distributor was dismissed. State Commission directed as follows:- “That the complaint be and the same is allowed in part. The OP Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- jointly and severally to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service. The said OPs shall also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant as litigation cost. The entire payment shall be made within a period of 45 days from the date of this order, in default interest @ 9% on the said sum shall be payable till final realization. OP Nos. 1 and 2 are further directed to take steps through suitable advertisement within a period of 3 months from the date of this order for making LPG consumers aware about the significance of alpha-numerical code as statutorily required to be put on the plate attached to a gas cylinder.” 6. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 (Indian Oil Corporation) has filed the present Appeal. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the State Commission passed the impugned order ignoring the fact that the Complainant attached and detached the cylinder several times and even put the water on the cylinder. Therefore, the Complainant mishandled the cylinder due to which problem had occurred. It was also submitted that the Complainant did not permit the Appellant to make detailed inspection of the cylinder. It, therefore, cannot be said as to what the actual problem was and there was a possibility that the cylinder might have been tempered by the Complainant himself. It was further submitted that the State Commission held that no accident had taken place and no harm was caused to the Complainant. Even then the State Commission held the Appellant deficient of service, which in itself is contrary to the observation of the State Commission. Learned Counsel for the Appellant also submitted that the cylinder was supplied after statutory testing. 8. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant submitted that the order passed by the State Commission was justified and the Appeal should be dismissed. 9. During the pendency of the Appeal, this Commission vide order dated 18th November, 2016, directed for inspection of the gas cylinder by a team of technical expert. Mr. Santanu Sinha, Manager (LPG-Sales) Kolkata-1 Sales Area submitted his report dated 19.06.2017 which read as follows: - “Ref: IND/KAO/NCDRC Date: 19.06.2017 INSPECTION REPORT Date & Time of Inspection: 19.06.2017, 8.45 am Place of Inspection: Residence of Sri Malay Kumar Majumdar 7/1 Haltu Kayasthapara, 1st Lane PO: Haltu, PS: Garfa Kolkata-78 Inspected item: 14.2 kg Indane LPG Cylinder having Batch No.:2430, Sr. No.Illegible, Mgf date: 10/03, Next Test due as mentioned: D10, Tare weight: 16.1 Kg. Observation: Inspection has been carried out in presence of Sri Malay Kr. Majumdar. During inspection Gross weight found 28.0 kg, hence net weight is 11.9 kg. In naked eye, the leaking liquid from the subject cylinder seems to be water. No LPG except water is found inside while pressuring the valve. Cylinder was out of circulation for around 5 years 5 months and was in custody of the complainant since 30.01.2012. Any tampering of the valve of the cylinder could not be detected in naked eye. Mfg Month/Year of the cylinder is 10/03. Hence “D10” was stamped on the stay plate of the cylinder as per prevalent directives in 2003 as first testing due after 7 years. But as per PESO Circular No.R.4(2) 100/2007 dated 20.08.2007 all new LPG cylinders (manufactured from the second quarter of the year 2000) are required to be taken for first statutory testing n& painting after 10 years, subsequent testing of all LPG cylinders is done after 5 years. Hence, testing of the cylinder was due on D13, but could not be tested as it was under custody of the customer. Normally all cylinders are tested as per the schedule. No test due cylinders are in circulation in the market. Sd/- 19/6/17 Shantanu Sinha Manager (LPG-Sales) Kolkata-1 Sales Area” 10. Reading of the above report makes it clear that the liquid leaking from the gas cylinder was water and there was no LPG in the cylinder except water. Thus, the expert report establishes that the gas cylinder was filled with water and there was no LPG in it, as alleged by the Complainant. It is also clear from the report that there was no tempering of the cylinder valve, as submitted by learned Counsel for the Appellant. The submission of learned counsel for the Appellant that no harm was caused to the Complainant, would not absolve the Appellant from the deficiency in service on their part. The State Commission, therefore, rightly allowed the Complaint. 11. In view of the above, deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant is clearly established. I find no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission. The impugned order passed by the State Commission is perfectly justified and does not warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction. The Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, with no order as to cost. | 
