State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

West Bengal

BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR)

31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE

KOLKATA – 700 027



S.C. CASE NO. : FA/08/469



DATE OF FILING : 05.12.2008 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 29.05.2009


APPELLANT



Sri Asit Kumar Hazra

S/o Late Rajendra Nath Hazra

Vill. Barikhali

P.O. Barikhali, P.S. Bauria,

Dist. Howrah.



RESPONDENTS



1. The Chairman

Indian Oil Corporation

G-9, Aliyavar Jung Marg

Bandra East

Mumbai-400 005.

2. General Manager

West Bengal State Office (Marketing Division)

Eastern Division, Indian Oil Corporation,

I.O.C.Bhavan, LPG Section,

1, Gariahat Road (South)

Dhakuria, Kolkata-19.

3. Pal Enterprise

C/o. Sri Sangvam Pal, Director,

Authorised Dealer of LPG Cylinder,

Indian Oil Corporation

Vill. Panchanantola, P.S. Bauria,

Dist. Howrah.
PROFORMA RESPONDENTS

4. Divisional Manager

M/s. New India Assurance Company

11th Floor, New India Centre,

17/A, Cooperage Road

Mumbai-400 039.

5. The Divisional Manager

Howrah Branch Office

The New India Assurance Company

Madhusudan Apartment (2nd Floor)

P-18, Dobson Lane, P.S. Golabari,

Dist. Howrah.





BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY

MEMBER : MR. S.COARI



FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. P.Banerjee, Ld. Advocate

FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Mr. S.K.Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate(Res.3)





: O R D E R :


MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER

The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 28.8.08 passed by Ld. Howrah District Consumer Forum in Complaint Case No. HDF 157 of 2006 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the petition of complaint on compromise against the OP Nos. 4 & 5 and dismissed the same against the OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3.

The case of the complainant before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant is a Consumer of Indian Oil Corporation through its dealer, Pal Enterprise, i.e. OP No. 3. On 3.2.06 the complainant received a new gas cylinder as per requisition from the OP No. 3 and thereafter on the self-same date while cooking with the help of that gas cylinder the wife of the complainant got badly burnt due to some leakage in the gas cylinder. Ultimately the wife of the complainant succumbed to her burn injury. The complainant preferred the claim before the OP, but that was turned down and hence, the petition of complaint was filed before the Forum below.

The OP Nos. 4 & 5, the Insurance Company, amicably settled the claim of the complainant, but the OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3 contested the case by filing separate written versions contending inter alia that the Ops were not responsible for the unfortunate death of the complainant’s wife. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. The gas cylinder was not served from the office of the OP No. 3. As there was no deficiency in service, the OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3 were not responsible for payment of any compensation to the complainant and that due to carelessness on the part of the complainant and his wife in handling the gas oven and cylinder the unfortunate incident took place for which the Ops are not responsible and that considering all these aspects the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed.

The Ld. District Forum while disposing of the case has observed that the complainant and his wife was negligent enough in handling the gas cylinder and the oven and the wife of the complainant got burnt for such negligent act on the part of the complainant and his wife, for which the Op Nos. 1, 2 & 3 were not responsible and accordingly dismissed the case against the Op Nos. 1, 2 & 3.

The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. Forum below was justified enough in disposing of the case in the manner as discussed above.
DECISION WITH REASONS

At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Respondents/Ops before us that from the materials on record it would be evident that the cylinder was never supplied by the OP No. 3. It is also hinted on behalf of the Ops that the complainant might have collected the cylinder from some unauthorized source and thus for the accident, which has caused the death of the complainant’s wife, the Ops are not responsible at all. It was due to the careless act on the part of the complainant and his wife the unfortunate incident took place. Moreover, there was no materials on record to show that the cylinder was supplied by the authorized agent of Indian Oil Corporation, i.e. OP No. 3, and considering all these aspects there is no merit in the present Appeal which should be dismissed with cost.

We have duly considered the submissions put forward on behalf of the Respondents/OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and have gone through the materials on record including the pleadings of the parties and find that it is the clear and positive case of the complainant/Appellant that he was a bonafide customer under Indian Oil Corporation and that the cylinder was received by the Appellant from the OP No. 3 and in this connection, the Appellant has produced the relevant Consumer Card along with the Refill Receipt which clearly indicates that on the relevant date, i.e. 3.2.06 the Appellant received the gas cylinder from the authorized agent. If that be the position, there is no scope to observe any contrary view in this regard. When there is no dispute about the complainant/Appellant’s status that of a Consumer under Indian Oil Corporation and that he was enjoying Indane Cooking gas facility since long, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the contention of the complainant in this regard which is adequately backed up by documentary evidence to the effect that on the date of occurrence the complainant did receive a gas cylinder from the authorized dealer and that on the self-same date there is an accidental fire from the gas cylinder which caused the death of the complainant’s wife. Unfortunately on perusal of the impugned judgement we find that the Ld. District Forum failed to appreciate this aspect of the case and as such, has arrived at a wrong and improper decision which is not backed up by sound reasoning and also not supported by surrounding circumstances. Considering the present matter in the light of above observation we are of considered opinion that the complainant has been able to substantiate his case as made out in the petition of complaint and that the OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3, are also jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant adequately in this regard. As regards the quantum of compensation we are of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the complainant be allowed a compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Accordingly, the Appeal succeeds and the impugned judgement so far as it relates to dismissal of the case against the OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3 is set aside.

Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only). The Appellant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lacs only) to be paid by the OP/Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3, who are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and cost to the complainant. The OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3 are directed to pay the decretal amounts within 30 (thirty) days from the date of communication of this order, failing which the said amounts will carry interest @ 10% (ten per cent) per annum for the period of default.



MEMBER MEMBER