PRONOUNCED ON: 24th JANUARY 2017 ORDER PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 03.01.2014, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 4634/2010, Sr. Area Manager, Indian Oil Bhawan vs. Ravindra Panduranga B. & Ors., vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad, dated 06.10.2010, in Consumer Complaint No. 113/2010, allowing the consumer complaint, filed by the complainant/respondent no. 1 was upheld. 2. The complainant/respondent no. 1, Ravindra Panduranga Rao, who works as a bus conductor with the Karnataka Roadways Transport Corporation (KRTC) Hubli, was the user of Indane Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) for which, the opposite party (OP) no. 1, Shree Enterprises was the distributor of OP no. 2, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. On 23.04.2008 at about 9.00 am, when the father of the complainant was changing the regulator from the empty gas cylinder to the new cylinder, the pin inside the neck of the cylinder slipped inside, resulting in leakage of gas from the new cylinder. When the light button in the kitchen was switched on, a huge fire broke out in his house, causing irreparable damage to the lives and property of the complainant’s family. At that time, the complainant was away on his duty, but his father, mother, wife and daughter, who were in the house, suffered serious injuries in the incident and were shifted to M/s Shakuntla Medical Centre, Hubli for treatment. His father died the same day at about 4.30 pm, while his mother and daughter also lost their lives on 08.05.2008 and 29.06.2008 respectively. His wife was seriously injured in the incident, but she survived after a long treatment. There was lot of damage to the household building as well as the property. Alleging that the tragedy occurred due to negligence of the OPs 1 and 2, in not carrying out proper checking of the LPG cylinders, the complainants filed the consumer complaint, seeking directions to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 19,90,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum as compensation for loss of life and property and also for the money spent on the medical treatment of his wife. 3. The petitioner/ OP-2, Indian Oil Corporation filed their reply to the consumer complaint, denying the allegations levelled in the same and stated that they had not violated any safety standards for the maintenance of the cylinders and hence, there was no deficiency in service on their part. They were observing all compulsory checks and safety precautions at the time of bottling the LPG into cylinders, which were subjected to immersion test, before sending them from the bottling plant to the distributor. After the accident, the cylinder in question was sent to the LPG Equipment Research Centre, Bangalore for ‘accident analysis report’. As per report dated 16.02.2009, there was no valve pin, spring and locking screw and hence, the test could not be carried out. The petitioner/OP-2 stated that the cylinder in question was supplied to the customer on 12.03.2008 through OP-1 distributor, while the alleged incident took place on 23.04.2008 i.e. after nearly six weeks, meaning thereby that the said cylinder had no defect. The accident occurred due to the mistake of the customer in handling the valve pin etc. Further, there was insurance cover available under the policies taken from various Companies and hence, the claim could be filed with the Insurance Company. 4. It was stated in the written submissions filed by the OP-3, New India Insurance Company, that in case of any liability, the same was limited to Rs. 10 lakhs as per section (vii) of the policy schedule, but subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. There was another policy as well taken from the United India Insurance Company for similar risks. 5. The District Forum after considering the pleadings of the parties, allowed the consumer complaint partly and directed OP-1 and petitioner/OP-2 to pay a sum of Rs. 10,50,000/- including Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenses with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realisation, alongwith Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost. The District Forum also observed that if there was any insurance policy covering the incident, the OPs 1 and 2 could lodge their claim with the said Insurance Company. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the petitioner/OP-2 challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission, and the said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order, the petitioner/OP-2 is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition. 6. The petitioner/OP-2 contended before the State Commission that their contract with the dealer was on ‘principle to principle’ basis, while they had no privity of contract with the complainant. The State Commission observed, however, that the manufacturer had the responsibility for taking all precautions before filling the cylinders prior to their delivery to the dealer, whose role was to ensure distribution of the cylinders to the customers. 7. During hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Indian Oil Corporation stated that the cylinder in question had been supplied to the complainant on 12.03.2008 i.e. about six weeks prior to the date of the accident on 23.04.2008. Had there been a manufacturing defect in the cylinder, the mishap could have occurred earlier. It was clear, therefore, that the incident occurred due to gross negligence on the part of the consumer. Referring to the LPG accident report dated 04.05.2008, the learned counsel pointed out that a non-standard rubber tubing was being used by the consumer. Moreover, the additional cylinder was found to be full with its seal intact with the implication that the cylinder, which was in usage, was involved in the incident. Referring to the accident analysis report dated 16.02.2009 by the LPG Equipment Research Centre, Bangalore, the learned counsel stated that no leakage was found in the said cylinder after carrying out the immersion test in water test bath. The said report also stated that the leakage was checked by using a different valve, because the valve pin and spring of the cylinder were missing. The learned counsel argued that the valve pin of the cylinder cannot go down in normal course. The complainant, therefore, must have done something unusual, as a result of which, the valve pin went down inside the cylinder. The learned counsel further argued that the relationship between them and the distributor was on ‘principle to principle’ basis. As stated in the Revision Petition, the cylinders were checked at two places before the delivery – first, when the cylinder leaves the bottling plant of the petitioner/OP-2 and second, by the distributor at the time of delivery of the cylinder. In this way, the petitioner/OP-2 was in no way responsible for the accident. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the complainant argued that the defence, being taken by the petitioner/OP-2 had not been stated in their reply before the District Forum. They had nowhere taken the plea that the relationship between them and the distributor was on ‘principle to principle’ basis. The learned counsel argued that three close family members of the complainant had died in the accident for which, he was liable to be compensated adequately. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 3, New India Assurance Company stated that the United India Insurance Company had not been impleaded as a party in the present Revision Petition, although they were a party before the District Forum. The case was, therefore, bad for misjoinder of the parties. 9. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. 10. The main issue for consideration in the matter is whether there has been any negligence on the part of the OPs-1 and 2 by supplying a defective gas cylinder to the complainant. The incident, involving the leakage of gas on 23.04.2008 at the house of the complainant and subsequent fire, resulting in the death of father, mother and daughter of the complainant, has not been denied anywhere by the OPs. It is clear from the facts of the case that when the regulator of the cylinder was being changed, the LPG gas leaked out and a fire resulted, when the light was switched on. There is nothing on record to show that the family members of the complainant were negligent in any manner in handling the gas cylinders. The petitioner has himself stated that the cylinders are checked at two stages, one at the time of bottling at the premises of the petitioner/OP-2 and then, at the time of distribution at the premises of the distributor. There is no specific report on record to indicate whether proper inspection of the ‘cylinder in question’ was carried out, before it was supplied to the consumer. Neither the petitioner/OP-2, Indian Oil corporation nor the OP-1, distributor have been able to put forward any document, from where it could be deciphered that the ‘cylinder in question’ was technically examined, before being dispatched to the consumer. Moreover, the reports brought on record i.e., the LPG accident report dated 04.05.2008 and the accident analysis report dated 16.02.2009 are unable to throw light on the exact cause of the accident. The LPG accident report says that a non-standard rubber tube was being used. This report also says that one full cylinder with seal intact was found lying at the premises of the complainant. The accident analysis report dated 16.02.2009 states that immersion test in water test bath for the cylinder in question was carried out, but no leakage was found anywhere. The leakage was checked by using a different valve, because valve pin and spring were missing from the cylinder. These two reports are unable to explain the reasons for the leakage of gas from the cylinder and the subsequent fire. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to say that there were many anomalies in the whole episode, because one full cylinder was found lying at the premises, which gives the impression that the cylinder supplied on 12.03.2008 was in use at the time of the accident. The learned counsel further argued that if the cylinder supplied on 12.03.2008 was in use, there was very little possibility of gas being inside the same, looking at the number of days during which it was in use. However, these arguments do not cut much ice, looking at the factual position of the case that three lives were lost in the incident and there was huge damage to the property of the consumer. It can be safely presumed that it was the duty of the OPs to take requisite steps to ensure the safety of the consumers. In the absence of any proof of negligence on the part of the complainants, it is evident that the incident took place due to certain fault/imperfection/shortcoming in the cylinder supplied to the family of the complainant. 11. Similar matters involving accidents relating to gas cylinders have been examined by the consumer fora including this Commission from time to time. In R. Raga Navya & Ors. vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors., II (2007) CPJ 505, the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Commission held the gas supplier company as well as the distributor responsible for the incident in which due to failure of the washer i.e. ‘O’ ring in the cylinder neck, the gas leaked out and accumulated under the platform of the gas stove, resulting in fire in which the mother of the complainant sustained burn injuries and died. The State Commission relied upon the principles of res ipsa loquitur as stated in the order of this Commission in T. T. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Akil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat & Ors., reported in II (1996), CPJ 239 (NC). The State Commission awarded an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs to the complainant, payable by the manufacturer and the distributor of gas. 12. In another case, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Anr. vs. Dharam Pal, III (2010) CPJ 377 (NC), this Commission observed as follows:- 7. Despite the tragic incident, the appellant has tried to take shelter under Clause 11 of the agreement which mandates observance of certain precautionary measures in order to avoid any mishap at the time of changing the cylinder. Even if we assume that the said precautions/safeguards were not meticulously followed by Smt. Usha at the time of changing the cylinder (because the electric stove was on), this circumstance alone would not exonerate the appellant and the distributor from their liability arising out of this mishap in which two lives were lost and a girl child was severally defaced and her ear was damaged as a result of injuries sustained by her. For these additional reasons, we find that the finding of the State Commission holding the appellant and opposite party No. 1 guilty of deficiency in service is just and proper and is not liable to be set aside. 13. In yet another case, Madhuri Govilka & Ors. vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation & Anr., IV (2006) CPJ 338 (NC), this Commission, after discussing the definition of ‘defect’ and ‘deficiency’, as given in Section 2(1)(g) and (f) respectively under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, observed that “when after lighting the gas, the cylinder was found burning all around in the periphery of the bottom lip of the regulator with dense yellow flames, this would certainly be a manufacturing defect. Hence, there is apparent deficiency in the manufacturing of the LPG cylinder. It was not only imperfect but there was shortcoming in the quality which is required to be maintained for the safety of the consumers.” In this case as well, a compensation of Rs. 10,08,000/- was awarded to the complainants, relying on the principles of the maxim, ‘res ipsa loquitur’. 14. Considering the facts of the present case, it is quite clear that the accident occurred when there was leakage of gas and subsequent fire from the cylinder manufactured by the petitioner/OP-2 and supplied by the OP-1 dealer. It is immaterial whether the regulator was changed by the father of the complainant or by the wife of the complainant at the given time. The whole family had to pay a very heavy price on account of the incident in which three lives were lost and there was huge damage to the property. The LPG accident report dated 04.05.2008 and the accident analysis report dated 16.02.2009 do not establish anywhere that there was no manufacturing defect in the cylinder in question. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to explain that the relationship between the petitioner and the distributor was on ‘principle to principle’ basis and they had no privity of contract with the complainant/consumer. This version of the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of their own admission that the cylinders in question are first checked when the cylinder leaves their bottling plant and secondly, at the time of delivery of the cylinder to the consumer. The petitioner cannot escape responsibility, therefore, in the whole episode which involved huge damage to life and property. From the foregoing discussion, we do not find any infirmity or illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the consumer fora below in their concurrent findings. We also agree with the findings of the consumer fora below that the OPs 1 and 2 shall be responsible jointly and severally for making the payment as per the orders passed to the complainant and in turn, they could recover the amount from the respective Insurance Company if permissible under the terms and conditions of the policies taken by them. The present Revision Petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed and the orders passed by the consumer fora below are upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. |
