A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
HYDERABAD.
FA 1137/2006 against C.C. 92/2001, Dist. Forum,Mahaboobnagar
Between:
1) M. V. Vijay Kumar, S/o. Satyanarayana
Age: 49 years, R/o. Bhainsa (V)
Adilabad Dist.
2) Swathi, D/o. M. V. Vijay Kumar
Age: 19 years,
3) Nagasrawanthi, D/o. M. V. Vijay Kumar
Age: 17 years.
Rep. by her father 1st complainant
4) Sahithi, D/o. M. V. Vijay Kumar
Age: 15 years,
Rep. by her father 1st complainant *** Appellants/
Complainants.
And
1) M/s. Guru Krupa Gas Agencies
HP Gas Dealer
Shop No. 22-12/1, Farooqnagar
Shadnagar
Rep. by its owner V. Sreekishan Rao
S/o. V. Rajeswara Rao
Thirumalapuram (V)
Jagthyal Town, Karimnagar Dist.
C/o. P. V. Manohar Rao
Pent House, Pradeep Apartments
Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad.
2) M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
130/1, S.D. Road, Secunderabad
Rep. by its Chief Regional Manager
3) The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
2-2-2/2, Opp. Modern High School
Mahaboobnagar,
Rep. by its Branch Manager.
*** Respondents/
Ops.
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. B. Rama Rao.
Counsel for the Resps: M/s. T. Venkata Rao (R1)
M/s. M. Ravindranath Reddy (R2)
Smt. S. N. Padmini (R3)
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
SRI SYED ABDULLAH, MEMBER
&
SRI R. L. NARASIMHA RAO, MEMBER
THURSDAY, THIS THE EIGTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND NINE
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
***
1) Appellants are unsuccessful complainants.
2) The case of the complainants in brief is that complainant Nos. 2 to 4 are daughters of complainant No. 1 and the deceased Smt. Pushpalatha. R1 is the dealer of R2, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. On the requisition of the deceased, R1 replaced a filled gas cylinder in the house of complainants in the first week of March, 1998. While so in the early morning of 5.3.1998, when she suspected smell of gas emanating from the cylinder, she switched on the lights, due to which the cylinder bursted with flames and the entire household articles were damaged. She had sustained grievous burns. Immediately she was shifted to Osmania General Hospital at Hyderabad. While undergoing treatment she died on the intervening night of 8/9-3-1998. The police registered a case in Crime No. 81/1998 u/s 174 of Cr.PC., and investigation was conducted. The accident was due to gross negligence on the part of R1. He filled excess gas in the cylinder. On that they issued legal notice for which they did not give any reply. Therefore, they claimed Rs. 5,000/- towards transportation of deceased to the hospital, Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards the expenses incurred for attending on the injured, Rs. 55,000/- towards damage to the household articles and Rs. 4,00,000/- towards compensation for loss of conjugal life and love and affection of deceased to the husband and to their children respectively.
3) R1 resisted the case. He denied each and every allegation made in the complaint. The allegation that the cylinder was filled with excess gas was not true. It was filled as per the norms. They have taken all necessary precautions before delivering the gas cylinder to the consumer. Replacement of gas cylinder was made four days prior to the accident. At no time, either the deceased or any of the complainants had informed about the gas leakage. In fact they gave reply to the notice. In the police panchanama there was a categorical mention that the rubber tube was broken at the connecting place of cylinder, and that there was no fault or leakage either through cylinder or regulator. In fact, it is the duty of the consumer to replace the rubber tube in periodical intervals. Since there was no negligence on its part it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) R2 the manufacturer equally resisted the case denying each and every allegation made in the complaint. It alleged that LPG was filled up in the cylinders in the filling plant with state of art technology and the entire process had in-built checks, counter checks and cross-checks. Unless the gas cylinder is properly filled as per the norms it would not be distributed to the distributors. It has nothing to do with the quality of rubber tube or hot plate used by the consumer. At any rate, it was covered by an insurance policy wherein the liability if any due to leakage of cylinder would be borne out by R3 insurance company.
5) R3 insurance company filed counter alleging that the complaint is frivolous and vexatious. There is gross negligence on the part of deceased in not changing the rubber tube due to which the accident took place. At any rate the compensation had to be restricted to Rs. 7,500/- per customer as per terms of policy. Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
6) The complainants in proof of their case filed affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A4 marked. Refuting their evidence R1 examined its Manager as RW1 and filed Exs. B1 to B8.
7) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the accident was due to defect in the rubber tube and nothing to do with either stove or cylinder, and consequently dismissed the complaint.
8) Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainants preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It ought to have held that there was defect in the cylinder which was the cause for the accident. It did not file any documents to show that the cylinder was thoroughly checked as per the norms and rules. In the light of fact that the respondents could not prove that the cylinder that was supplied to them was not defective, they were entitled to compensation.
9) The points that arise for consideration are:
a) Whether there was any defect or deficiency in service on the part of any of the respondents?
b) If so whether they were liable to pay compensation?
c) If so, to what amount?
10) It is an undisputed fact that R1 and R2 are dealer and manufacturer of filled LP gas cylinders and that the deceased in the early hours of 5.3.1998 woke up having smelt leakage of LPG gas from the cylinder supplied by R1 in her kitchen, and on that she switched on the lights due to which there was explosion from cylinder and on that she succumbed to injuries. While the complainants alleged that there was defect in the cylinder due to which the gas was leaked, the respondents the dealer as well as the manufacturer alleged that it was due to defect in the rubber tube
for which they had no concern. She was admittedly taken to a hospital at Hyderabad, and on requisition, the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad recorded her dying declaration vide Ex. B3. She stated that when she switched on the lights when she smelt leakage of gas the cylinder was exploded and that she succumbed to burn injuries. Scene of offence Panchanama was conducted by the police after registering the case in Crime No. 81/1998 u/s 174 of Cr.PC and found that the rubber tube connecting the gas stove and cylinder was broken. It is not the case of the complainant that the Panchanama that was conducted by the police confirming the leakage was due to broken rubber tube was incorrect. The said finding of fact by the police was not controverted nor questioned.
11) Admittedly, R1 supplied the HP gas cylinder four days prior to the incident. At no time there was leakage of gas. Though for the first time in the complaint said allegation was made, it was unsubstantiated. If really such leakage was observed there was no reason why the complainants kept quiet without asking for change of cylinder. All these discussions are unnecessary in the light of the fact that there was categorical observation by the police in the panchanama that the incident took place due to defect in the rubber tube.
12) Though the learned counsel for the appellants/complainants relied various provisions of the Gas Cylinder Rules, 1981 he could not point out that it is the duty of the distributor (R1) to check and verify the quality of rubber tube. The deceased was admittedly a graduate. She should have checked up the condition of the rubber tube. No rule or stipulation is placed before us in order to fix the responsibility on R1 where the gas agency has to look after the quality of the rubber tube.
13) In view of the fact that the police investigation revealed that broken rubber tube connecting the gas stove and cylinder was the cause for the incident, we cannot impute any negligence either on the part of R1 or R2. There is no evidence to show that the cylinder supplied was defective or they filled the gas in excess to the standards. When positively, the respondents could prove that the accident took place due to defect in the rubber tube, we cannot blame either R1 or R2 for the accident. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact by the Dist. Forum in this regard. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
14) In the result the appeal is dismissed, however, without costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
3) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 08. .10. 2009.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
