SHARDA BEN vs GUJARAT GAS SUPPLIER

THE appellants, who were the complainants before the State Commission, Gujarat are the heirs of Naginbhai Lallubhai who lost his life on account of fire due to alleged leakage of L.P. Gas from the cylinder at his residence on May 1,1988. It was alleged in the complaint that the deceased received burn injuries while he was igniting the gas with a metal stick on that day. THEre was leakage of gas on account of some fault or deficiency in the cylinder and escaped gas caused fire with a blast. THE deceased succumbed to his injuries. Carelessness or negligence and deficiency in the rendering of service was alleged on the part of the distributor and the gas company who had supplied the gas refill.

THE distributor who was arrayed as opposite party No. 1 to the complaint contested the complaint. It is not necessary to reproduce all his averments suffice it to say that they denied the allegation of negligence or that the gas cylinder was of poor quality and because of the leakage of gas the accident took place. It was also pleaded that the deceased was not a ''Consumer'' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the gas connection was in the name of one Gunvantbhai Patel and therefore it was not open to anybody else than his family members to use the said gas connection. The gas company as well as the Insurance Company with whom the distributor''s trade was insured were also arrayed as opposite parties No. 2 and 3 respectively.

At the time of hearing, before the State Commission, their jurisdiction was challenged by the opposite parties on two grounds : Firstly the deceased was not a ''consumer'' and secondly the complaint involved disputed questions of fact and law which could not be decided unless the Commission allowed elaborate evidence to be addressed by the parties, both documentary as also oral. The Commission took of the second objection only and remarked: "Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, in our opinion, this complaint can not be correctly decided without taking oral as well as Expert''s evidence. It is also necessary to get produced the cylinder as well as the Regulator which could be sent to the Laboratory for checking and report. Neither party has tried to produce evidence on this material aspect. Under the circumstances, we feel that we would not be able to do proper justice if we proceed to decide this case merely on the affidavits and particularly in absence of important evidence. As the pleadings show, the case requires thorough investigation and elaborate inquiry including the task of recording voluminous oral evidence and the leading of Expert''s evidence, as also the technical examination of the cylinder, and Regulator. All this could be properly done and gone into by the regular Civil Court."

PLACING reliance upon Special Machines v. Punjab National Bank and Others, I (1991) CPJ 78 (NC) a case decided by this Commission, the State Commission disposed of the complaint with liberty to the complainants to approach the Civil Court if they so choose. Feeling aggrieved of that Order, the complainants have filed this appeal.

WE are of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be allowed. In a subsequent Order passed in appeal titled S.K. Abdul Sukur v. State of Orissa and Others, (1989-90) 3 MTR 236 this Commission had the occasion to explain the observations made in Special Machines'' case, it was remarked: "It is true that in M/s. Special Machines v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. - O.P. No. 32 of 1989 = I (1991) CPJ p.78 this Commission did decline to adjudicate upon the disputes brought before it and referred the complainant to the remedy by way of suit. But that was an exceptional case where transactions of borrowings from banks extending over a long period of many years in different accounts were sought to be reopened on allegations of fraud, misappropriation, manipulation of accounts, violation of banking norms etc. This Commission found after its preliminary examination of the case that the issues arising therein could not be satisfactorily adjudicated upon without elaborate scrutiny and rendition of accounts in relation to transactions of borrowing which the complainant had with the respondent bank under different heads spread over a long period of many years. The observations contained in the Order passed by this Commission in that case have to be understood against the background of the special facts relating thereto which were of an exceptional nature. The said decision is not to be understood as laying down any general preposition that in all cases where the examination and cross-examination of witnesses is involved the proper forum for adjudication of the dispute is only the Civil Court."

In Abdul Sukur''s case it was also remarked: "The mere fact that witnesses may have to be examined and their cross-examination may also be necessary is not by itself a valid ground for refusing adjudication of the dispute before the Redressal Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. It is to be remembered that the very purpose for which the statute has to be enacted is to provide a cheap and speedy remedy to aggrieved consumers by way of an alternative to the time consuming and expensive process of civil litigation. Section 13(4) of the Act (the provisions of which are made applicable to the State Commission by Section (18) specifically invests the Redressal Forums with the powers vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of the summoning and enforcing attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, the discovery and production of documents and other materials produce able as evidence, the reception of evidence on affidavits, the issuing of commissions for the examination of any witness etc. The statute thus clearly contemplates that the Redressal Forums constituted under it are to decide cases filed before them after taking such oral and documentary evidence as the circumstances of any given case may require. Unless a Redressal Forum constituted under the Act finds after a careful scrutiny of the pleadings and the documents etc., relied on by the parties that a satisfactory adjudication of the matter cannot be conducted by it in proceedings under the Act because of the exceptionally complicated nature of the factual and legal issues involved, it will not be just or proper to decline to adjudicate upon a complaint filed by an aggrieved consumer. The question whether or not there was negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties in relation to the performance of a particular item of service is not by itself too complicated to be determined by the Redressal Forums constituted under the Act on a consideration of the relevant oral and documentary evidence. If jurisdiction is declined by the Special Redressal Forums set up under the Act in all such cases on the mere ground that examination and cross-examination of witnesses would be necessary, it would amount to unjust denial of the benefits of the Act to the aggrieved consumer by erroneous abdication of its jurisdiction by the Forums."

In view of the above observations made by this Commission it is not necessary to dilate much upon the present controversy. Suffice it to say that if the various Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 decline to exercise jurisdiction in complaints only on the ground that disputed questions of law and fact are involved and evidence has to be recorded, the provisions of the above Act would be rendered nugatory and a poor consumer will not be enabled to take benefit of benevolent provisions of the Act In the present case we do not find that any complicated questions of law or fact are involved. The complainant could be asked to produce the cylinder and the regulator if they are available and they could be got examined by some expert appointed by the Commission. Oral evidence can also be adduced in proof of all relevant facts. The question that the deceased was a consumer or not can be easily examined on the basis of affidavits. The disputed questions are not such as would require voluminous evidence.

CONSEQUENTLY we accept the present appeal, set aside the Order of the State Commission and remand the case to it for decision on merits. No order as to costs. Appeal accepted.