Indian Oil Corporation vs Pyare Lal

THIS revision petition has been filed by the Indian Oil Corporation, which was opposite party No. 3 before the District Forum, to challenge the impugned order dated 15.07.2011 passed by Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, the State Commission) in appeal No. 83 of 2009. Respondents 1 and 2 herein were complainants 1 and 2, respectively, and respondents 3 and 4 were opposite parties 1 and 2. Respondent No. 5 was opposite party No. 4 before the District Forum. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been described according to their status before the District Forum.

THE factual matrix of this case, briefly stated, are that complainant No. 2, Kundan Lal was a subscriber of LPG connection with opposite party No. 2 since 28.1.1994. Complainant No. 1, Pyare Lal is son of complainant No. 2, Kundan Lal. THE complainants had booked gas cylinder with opposite party No. 2 in October, 2005, which was supplied by them in the same month. It is alleged that on 24.10.2005 at about 12-12.30 p.m. when the seal of the gas cylinder was removed by complainant. No. 1, it started leaking out with great force and speed and as a result thereof, fire broke out in their house and complainant No. 1 received grievous burn injuries in this fire incident and upper portion of the building of the complainants got damaged extensively due to the blast during which the furniture and other article also got burnt in the fire. THE incident of blast of fire was immediately reported to the police. It was alleged that there was negligence on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2, who were suppliers of LPG cylinder of opposite party No. 3, who is manufacturer of gas cylinder in bulk, because of which blast and the resultant fire had caused huge loss to the building and injuries to complainant No. 1. THE complainant, therefore, lodged a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice wherein compensation amounting to Rs.6,50,000/- was claimed alongwith interest @18% per annum w.e.f. 25.10.2005 till the date of payment alongwith damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. On being noticed, the opposite parties resisted and contested the complaint. The opposite parties 1 and 2 in their joint reply took the stand regarding the status of the complainants as consumers and the maintainability of the complaint on jurisdiction and on merits, it was pleaded that complainant No. 2 was a subscriber of the gas cylinder with opposite party No. 1 and the gas connection had been provided to him at his address at Sarupa Nand Building, Rohru and not at village Pawli where the complainant alleged to have subscribed to the supply of LPG cylinder, which is at a distance of 5 kilometers from the aforesaid Sarupa Nand Building. In view of this, it was contended by opposite parties No. 1 and 2 that the said cylinder had been unauthorisedly used by the complainants and as such they are not liable to indemnify the complainants. Opposite party No. 3, namely, Indian Oil Corporation, also did not accept the liability to indemnify the complainants because it was submitted that they are manufacturers of LPG cylinder in bulk which are supplied to opposite parties 1 and 2 after proper checking in the plant and having obtained insurance cover from opposite party No. 4 by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 in terms of clause 18 of the Distributorship Agreement, opposite party No. 4 is liable to indemnify the loss to the complainants. However, opposite party No. 4 in a separate reply contended that since there was no privity of contract between the complainants and opposite party No. 4, there was no deficiency in service on their part and hence the complainants are not entitled for any damage in the present case and the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

The District Forum on appraisal of the issues involved and the evidence adduced by the parties and after hearing the parties, vide its order dated 22.1.2009 accepted the compliant and held the opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 3 jointly and severally liable to pay damages to the tune of Rs.3,48,167/- to the complainants alongwith interest @9% w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint i.e.22.3.2006 till making full payment of the amount alongwith litigation cost quantified at Rs.2,500/-. The complaint against opposite party No. 4 was dismissed being not maintainable. The opposite party No. 3/petitioner and opposite parties 1 and 2 filed separate appeals challenging the aforesaid order of the District Forum. An appeal was also filed by the two complainants before the State Commission for enhancement of the damages awarded in their favour by the District Forum. The State Commission vide its impugned order dismissed all the three appeals and upheld the order of the District Forum.

WE have heard Mr. M. M. Kalra, learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party No. 3. It is to be noted that both the fora below have returned their concurrent finding of fact in favour of the complainants accepting their complaint and unsuiting the defence put forth by the petitioner. WE have perused the record. Both the District Forum and State Commission have dealt with the contentions raised by the petitioner, which are now reiterated in the revision petition at length. The State Commission while dismissing the appeal of the petitioners has observed as under:- 17.Since Sh. Kundal Lal is admittedly registered as a subscriber with the appellants, is father of Sh. Pyare Lal, complainant No.1 and there is fiduciary relationship between them and generally it is a common practice that between the relations if son needs cylinder, he can ask for it from his relation i.e. father, as such there is nothing wrong. If the cylinder was taken to Pawali by complainant No.1, and it is admitted case of the appellants that the cylinder was supplied to Sh. Kundan Lal on 29.5.2005 and there is overwhelming evidence on record to the effect that this cylinder had blasted in the house of Shri Pyare Lal at Pawali. As per affidavit of father and son i.e. both the complainants, when the seal of the cylinder was removed by complainant No.1, it started leaking out with great force and speed resulting in a blast and fire as a result thereof complainant No.1, Pyare Lal received grievous burn injuries in the fire incident and upper portion of the building of the complainants sustained extensive damage and other accessories/articles in the house were destroyed and there was a massive fire incident which was reported to the Police Station, Rohroo and report in this regard was also published in the newspapers and even the photographs Annexure A.4 depicts the burn injuries on the person of Shri Pyare Lal and this fact is duly corroborated by the Medical Examination report, Annexure A.6 and certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Rajkiya Chikitsalya, Rohroo, Annexure A.7 and the certificate, Annexure A.8 issued by the Fire Officer and by Gram Panchayat, Karalash, Annexure A.9.Even the abstract of cost and site plan, Annexure A.10 also clearly depicts that massive damage was caused to the building and detailed inventory which is at page-27 of the complaint file also depicts about the articles destroyed in the fire. Even the certificate which is at page 28 of the complaint file also corroborate the version of the complainants that as a result of blasting of cylinder fire had broken in the house and as a result thereof house was destroyed. Even the photograph of the cylinder which is at page-12 of the complaint file also corroborates the version of blasting and damage etc. 18.Since reliance has been placed by the Indian Oil Corporation on Annexure R.3/A, which is an agreement executed between the IOC and the H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation, wherein under the heading, Distributor not to sell outside his territory, it is provided as under:- (iv) The Distributor will during the continuance of this Agreement confine himself to effect the sale in the area of territory specified hereinabove but the Corporation shall be entitled without the consent of the Distributor to enlarge reduce, increase or modify such area of territory to such other place as may from time to time be authorized by the Corporation in writing. And as such it was bounden duty of O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 to prove that the village of complainant is not covered under the specified area and cylinder could not be taken by the complainant to their village, Pawali which was not the specified place for sale of cylinder . No documentary evidence has been placed on record in this regard by the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2, therefore, for want of cogent documentary evidence which has not been produced on record by the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 to prove that village Pawali which is 5 kms. From Rohroo where the L.P.G connection had been provided was not covered for sale of LPG cylinders. As such, this plea is not having any force and deserves to be rejected and the Forum below has dealt exhaustively this point in its order and as such there is no infirmity in the order of the Forum below in holding jointly and severally O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 liable to pay damages to the complainants as awarded while allowing the complaint. There is also no force in the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the respondent-Corporation has not come with clean hands since no report of the incident was made to the appellants in the matter. Generally, report in such matters is made to the Police Station as well as to the Gram Panchayat which have been promptly made by the complainant in the present case which fact is evident from the Rapat No.23, dated 24.10.2005 of Police Station, Rohroo and on the same day an application for medication examination of the injured Shri Pyare Lal was made to the Medical Officer, Rohroo and medical certificate, Annexure A.7 also corroborates the grievous burn injuries on the person of Shri Pyare Lal and this fact is also corroborated from the Annexure A.8 and A.9 which are Certificates of Fire Officer as well as of Gram Panchayat and the certificate of Patwari, dated 19.1.2006 which clearly corroborates the complainants version that on 24.10.2005 gas cylinder was blasted in the house of Shri Pyare Lal. Hence, this plea is devoid of any force and deserves to be rejected on this score alone. As such, if the Civil Supplies Corporation was not informed in the matter, it is of no consequence since it is admitted fact that incident of fire had occurred due to blasting of the cylinder.

It would be seen from the above that the impugned order is based on concurrent findings of fact, which are broadly undisputed and admitted. No further material has been produced before us which would persuade us to take a different view than that taken by the State Commission. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason or ground to interfere with the impugned order while exercising our revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

THE revision petition, therefore, stands dismissed at the threshold with no order as to costs.