Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs NEHA PRADIP PARALIKAR

THIS appeal has been filed against the order dated 23.6.93 passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Complaint No.114/92. The Appellant herein (Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.) was opposite party No. 1 before the State Commission. The complainant (Mrs. Neha Pradeep Paralikar), opposite party No. 2 (M/s. Dadar Gas Service) and Opposite party No. 3 (United India Insurance Co.) are respectively respondents No. 1, 2 and 3.

BRIEFLY the facts of the case are : Smt. Shaila Dhume (mother of the complainant), resident of Bombay was a consumer who had hired the services of opposite party No. 1 for supply of LPG cylinders through opposite party No. 2. She was staying at the material time with her son and her two years old grand daughter (daughter of the complainant). On 5.4.90 the said Shaila Dhume lit the gas stove in the kitchen at about 6.30 a.m. for providing boiled milk to her grand-daughter. The moment she lighted the gas stove, a fire broke out due to the alleged leakage of gas and as a result, blast occurred. The complainant''s mother, brother and daughter were injured in the blast and subsequently they died due to burn injuries in the hospital. The flat was also damaged in the blast. The complainant alleged that the accident occurred due to defective manufacturing of the LPG cylinder since the gas which was leaking from cylinder had accumulated in the kitchen and got exploded. She, therefore, contended that the accident occurred due to the defective cylinder and deficiency in service and claimed Rs. 9,78,854/- as compensation. The complainant claimed that she was the beneficiary of the services hired by her mother from the opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 and that her complaint was maintainable. Opposite party No. 1 raised objection to the jurisdiction of the State Commission and denied that the cylinder was leaking. It was also submitted by opposite party No. 1 that there was negligence of the part of Smt. Shalia Dhume to ignite the stove without taking due precautions. Opposite party No. 2 stated that it had supplied a new re-filled LPG cylinder on 2.4.90. Opposite party No. 3 denied the complainant''s allegations and pleaded that as against them, the complaint be dismissed. The State Commission went into the questions of, (i) whether the complainant is a ''Consumer'' in respect of opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 and whether the complaint is maintainable; (ii) whether the cylinder in question was defective goods and whether the services rendered by opposite party No. 2 were deficient; (iii) whether the complainant had suffered loss on account of the defective LPG cylinder and negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite party Nos. 1 & 2; and (iv) the amount of compensation. The State Commission held that Mrs. Shaila Dhume hired the services of opposite party No. 1 for supply of gas cylinder and the complainant had clearly established that at the material time the complainant''s daughter and brother were residing in flat No. 142/4 at Dadar and were enjoying the LPG gas cylinder facility. The complainant, therefore, was beneficiary of the services hired by her mother and was a ''Consumer''. The Commission concluded that since the allegations made in the complaint were about the defective cylinder and deficiency in service the complaint was maintainable.

There was, however, a material difference in the statements of the complainant and the opposite parties regarding the date of the delivery of the cylinder; whereas according to the complainant the cylinder was delivered on 4.4.90 the opposite parties stated that the date of delivery was 2.4.90. The accident in question occurred on 5.4.90. It was the contention of the opposite parties that since the gas cylinder was supplied on 2.4.90 and the explosion took place on 5.4.90 there could not have been any defect leading to leakage of the gas cylinder. However, the State Commission noted in its order that the opposite parties had not produced any proof that the gas cylinder was actually supplied on 2.4.90 and, therefore, relied on the statement of the complainant about the date of delivery as 4.4.90 and came to the conclusion that the gas cylinder in question was defective which resulted in the loss of three lives. The Commission directed opposite party No. 1 to pay to the complainant Rs. 62,254/-towards hospitalisation and medical expenses and Rs. 2,50,000/- for the loss of three lives, Rs. 5,000/- for the damage caused to the house and Rs. 1,000/- as costs.

AGGRIEVED by this order, the present appeal has been preferred. The main points raised are; (i) gas cylinder was delivered on 2.4.90 to the consumer for which they have produced a copy of the Customer Card (at Page 177 of the paper book); (ii) Mrs. Dhume was a single cylinder consumer and hence the new cylinder was connected to the gas stove and not just delivered in the house; and (iii) leakage of gas, if any, could have also occurred from defective rubber tube or defective hot plate for which they are not responsible and liable in any manner. The one material question in this case pertains to the date of delivery of the cylinder. The State Commission have pointed out that there was no evidence produced by opposite party No. 1 regarding their assertion that the gas cylinder was supplied on 2.4.90, though there was an affidavit dated 25.8.92 before the State Commission of the delivery man, Shri Shridhar Gade working with opposite party No. 2 which referred to the Customer Card to this effect. We are not aware whether the copy of the Customer Card was produced before the State Commission as an annexure to the said affidavit. Since, there is controversy between the complainant and the opposite parties on the main issue of the date of delivery of gas cylinder, it would be just and proper for the State Commission to peruse this evidence as well as any other evidence which has a bearing on the date of supply of cylinder and consider the case in the light of such evidence. Accordingly, we accept the present appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the State Commission for de novo disposal. As the case is old we hope the State Commission will expedite its disposal. We make no order as to costs. Appeal accepted. ______________