AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE petitioner has come in revision against concurrent finding of two Fora below.
BRIEF facts, which led to the filing of the three complaints before the District Forum are: Complainant, Ganpatti Ashish Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. had purchased Chemistik from the Ops/petitioners and while applying the same, inside the water tank for water proofing, the halogen bulb which was fixed for the purpose of light exploded and on account of which there was fire and three labourers who were applying the said chemical suffered burn injuries and had to be taken to the hospital where they received treatment. The complainants case was that no brochure or pamphlet as information material was provided along with the bill for purchase of the said Chemistik boxes or displayed visibly outside the said boxes and no instructions about the fire hazards were there. The case of the Ops / petitioners was that the informative brochure was supplied along with the bill to complainant No.2 who had purchased the said boxes. The District Forum came to the conclusion that the OPs had failed to prove that they had supplied brochure informing that the Chemistik material could not be used in leakage of water. The Consumer Forum took into consideration the stand of the OP that the Chemistik material was not for application inside the water tank as it was highly inflammable while recording findings against the OPs. The complaints were allowed and the OPs/petitioners were directed to pay the amounts incurred towards medical expenses, loss of earnings as also compensation of Rs.25,000/- each for metal trauma.
The order of the District Forum was challenged before the State Commission. The State Commission by an elaborate order and after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects dismissed the appeal.
WE have heard the Ld. Counsel on both sides. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the material in question was not suggested for application for water tank; that the Complainant No.2 was responsible, as it did not educate the labourers regarding the instructions contained in the brochure and on the said boxes; that the accident took place on account of bursting of halogen bulb which could also be on account of lighting of bidi, cigarette during the application of Chemistik material and that the order of the Fora below is required to be interfered with. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant submitted that the Forensic Science Laboratory had opined that the containers of the waterproofing chemicals seized from the spot of incident on 3.9.2002 containing solvents like xyiene, ethyl benzene, iso propyl benzene, ethylene glycol and the said chemicals were inflammable in nature and the said report has not been challenged; that in spite of the fact that the material was highly inflammable no brochure was supplied and that the findings of two Fora below do not call for interference.
THE State Commission had noticed that no direction or caution was printed on the tins or covering board/wrapper board of those tins, when goods were sold to the Complainant No.2. THE accident took place on account of negligence on the part of OPs in not giving instructions to the users, which is deficiency in service. It is further pointed out that the Chemistik being highly inflammable, precaution notice should be displayed over the tins or its wrapper board to make the people at large aware that the substance was highly inflammable and they should take precautions not to bring this Chemistik in contact with electricity bulb or inflammable articles. It was further stated that no warning of this nature was printed on the wrapper board and no brochure was separately given to the complainant by the Company or dealer giving instructions of this nature. Finally, the State Commission has observed that chemical of this nature should not have been sold in this fashion to public at large to avoid such unforeseeable accident and the accident occurred only on account of the fact that proper instructions were not given by OP while selling the chemical in question to the Complainant No.2-Society. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner had initially produced empty sample tin before us, which did not have date of manufacture, batch number, etc. Subsequently, Counsel for the petitioner sought time to produce tin of the same batch, which was sold to the complainant. THEreafter, an application was filed by the Counsel for the petitioner stating that the word same batch had been inadvertently recorded in order dated 13.1.2010 and Counsel for the Petitioner had never sought time to produce the tin of the same batch which was sold to the complainant. This application was dismissed vide order dated 19.2.2010. Counsel for the complainant then placed before us the literature of Chemistik, which in fact states that the Chemistik waterproofs all absorbent surfaces and no skill labour is required. The literature does not show when it was printed. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner had also placed before us 2 tins of Chemistik one showing batch number and its manufacture as October, 2008. The same is affixed on the container by a slip and not printed. He also produced an old tin. In the old tine the precautions mentioned are: 1. Before application, ensure surface is clean, firm primed and cracks filled as recommended in our leaflet. 2. Close lid tightly after use. Store away from direct sunlight in cool dry place. 3. Clean hands tools with mineral turpentine. 4. For safety precautions refer to literature. In the new tin, the date of manufacture is October, 2008. The directions recorded on the tine are as under: 1. Before application, ensure surface is clean, firm primed and cracks filled as recommended in our leaflet. 2. Close lid tightly after use. Store away from direct sunlight in cool dry place. 3. Clean hands tools with mineral turpentine. 4. Being inflammable work in well ventilated areas. Do not smoke, do not use open flames, naked lights etc, while coating.
The precaution number 4, which is recorded on the new tin, does not figure in the precautions recorded in the old tin. This shows that in the old tin the instructions to the effect being inflammable, work in well ventilated area, do not smoke, do not use open flames, naked lights etc. while coating did not figure on the old tin. The State Commission has pointed out that as per report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the containers of the waterproofing chemicals seized from the spot of incident were inflammable in nature. Old tins did not have the precautions relating to inflammable nature of the material in question.
ON assessment of material on record, the State Commission had rightly recorded the findings on the basis of material on record. We have no reason whatsoever either to take a different view of the matter or to interfere with the well founded reasoning of the State Commission. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this revision and the revision is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.