Order-10.
Date-16/12/2015.
In this complaint Complainants Mrs. Ira Mondal and Mrityunjoy Mondalby filing this complaint has submitted that complainant no.2 is a domestic gas consumer, holder of Domestic Gas Consumer card being no. 140428 being consumer no. 25423 being SV no. 2096 issued on 27.12.2012 and complainant no.1 is his wife and prefers to prepare food at her home on her own.But unfortunately the incident took place on 02.04.2014 and due to gas leakage, irreparable loss and injury to the health of the complainant no.1 and in fact complainant had to suffer from eye sight because of the supply of mishandled leaking gas cylinder by the op.
But fact remains that the wife of the complainant no.2 was cooking at home and she required to replace the freshly delivered gas cylinder which was delivered by the local distributor on 07.02.2014 being order no. 2000150351 and refill voucher/cash memo/bill no. 3000196988 with the empty one already in use and the moment complainant no.1 touched the nozzle to uncover so that she can fix it with the stove the same jumped with great velocity and hit her right eye causing major injuries to her eye and eyesight and the complainant no.1 was immediately taken to the hospital and was diagnosed with a damaged retina which was beyond repair.So, the complainant no.2 immediately took her wife to the hospital where she was kept on medication and husband of the complainant no.1 lodged a consumer complaint to the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through their website being Complaint Docket No.1406175 dated 16.04.2014 and on 30.06.2014 there was a reply from the Customer Care Unit of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. stating that the complainants shall forward the details of the local distributor and the documents submitted by the complainant no.2 could not be retrieved by their concerned department.
Thereafter complainant no.2 wrote letters and reminders to the concerned authority of the IOCL finally on 28.07.2014 and there was a response from one Mr. Amar NathMukhopadhyay, Deputy Manager (LPG Sales), Kolkata Area Office where he stated that the complainant’s claim was forwarded to the insurance company for taking necessary action and about feedback as soon as they received it from the insurance company.But after that complainant no.2 on behalf of his wife complainant no.1 wrote various letters and reminders to Deputy Manager of LPG Sales.But there was no response since then he actually was trying to kill time without giving any reason and remedy to the complainants.
Complainant no.1 was taken to Disha Eye Hospital on 02.04.2014 and on the following day to Priyamvada Birla Eye Hospital at Kolkata on 03.04.2014 wherein she was told that her retina has been damaged and she cannot retrieve her earlier eyesight by any medication anywhere.After that for further opinion complainant no.1 went to Belle Vue Clinic on 04.04.2014 wherein she was examined by one Dr. SomakMajumdar and there also she was informed the same as earlier and was given medication and the same view was confirmed by Disha Eye Hospital & Research Centre at Kolkata, complainants then to get better treatment went to SankaraNethralaya and there she was informed the same and thereafter she visited LV Prasad Eye Institute at Hyderabad.But it was opined that there is no chance for recovery of such damage retina.In fact for the laches and negligent manner of service on the part of the ops, complainant no.1 suffered such a damage of her eye and shall have to bear such pain till her date.Complainants getting no remedy again wrote letter and ultimately op admitted that the delivery cylinder was actually damaged and leakage and they replaced the same with fresh one.The broken cylinder is retained by the complainant and same is produced as and when asked.But anyhow complainant received no relief from the ops.But in the meantime for treatment of her right eye spent Rs. 50,000/- but ultimately her retina condition is not improved and in fact for delivery of defective and leaking cylinder caused such sort of damage of eye of the complainant no.1 and if such sort of conduct of the ops are continued in that case many customers shall have to face severe consequences and such sort of delivery of defective cylinder has caused the damage of the complainant no.1.But ops have no compensated.
In fact the ops have no sense of responsibility and they have failed to provide service even after receiving payment of the gas cylinder and also for delivery of defective leaking cylinder.
In the above circumstances, complainants have prayed for compensation and other relief.
Notices were duly served upon the ops but all the ops being a responsible company and their dealers did not turn up to contest this case and one of the op refused to accept the summons which is evident from the postal internet service report and IOC received notice but Konnagar Gas Service refused to accept it and in the above circumstances the case is heard exparte.
Decision with reasons
On comprehensive study of the complaint including the documents and also the domestic gas consumer card, it is clear that MrityunjoyMondal is the holder of a gas connection being Consumer No.25423, SV No. 2096, Card Sl. No.IOC/ER/140428 and distributor name is Konnagar Gas Services, G.T. Road, Konnagar, Hooghly and that connection was issued on 13.03.2013.From their receipt issued by Konnagar Gas Service, it is found that on 06.03.2014 such refilling cylinder was issued on payment of Rs. 416/- by Konnagar Gas Service.
Truth is that on 16.04.2014, complainant reported about the incident which took place on 02.04.2014 and forthwith that was reported and in the meantime treatment was taken by the complainant no.1 and thereafter complainant lodged a consumer complaint to IOC on 16.04.2014 and on 30.06.2014 reply was given by IOC and they have reported that the matter was referred to Insurance Company for feedback but nothing has been done.But from the E-mail dated 19.04.2014, it is found that after receiving about the incident and gas leaking etc. gas cylinder has been replaced with fresh one by the local distributor and matter was reported to distributor but distributor did not take any step until it was reported to the authority of IOC and from the medical treatment as taken by the op no.1, it is clear that complainant sustained injury due to gas leakage traumatic sub macular hemorrhage with cornnotis retinawas detected and no doubt complainant no.1 was examined by so many doctors but all of them opined that the present position of the retina cannot be improved in view of the fact it was already damaged and considering that fact and also the letter of the Indian oil sent by the LPG Cell A.O. Amarnath, it is found that IOC forwarded the same to insurance company to take necessary action and said letter was dated 28.07.2014 but after that no compensation or anything has been given by the ops.
In the meantime for supply of defective gas cylinder, complainant no.1 suffered huge losses in her right eye and practically her eye sight has been damaged because the retina has already damaged and no doubt complainant has spent Rs. 50,000/- for her treatment.But ultimately no improvement is received because damage was caused due to said leakage of gas and truth is that defective cylinder was supplied by the dealer of the IOC that is Konnagar Gas Service.
But fact remains that it is the duty of the dealer to deliver a gas cylinder after proper checking at the house where it is being delivered and at the time of delivery this checking must be made.But it is proved that a defective cylinder was delivered without checking and for which such incident took place because it was a defective and leaking gas cylinder which is proved because after making complaint the IOC Authority/distributor changed the gas cylinder that means there was negligence and deficiency on the part of the op dealer also because dealer supplied the same and it was his duty to deliver a gas cylinder after proper checking at the delivery point in presence of the customers but that has not been done.
In this context it is proved that Konnagar Gas Service was aware of the fact but they did not discharge their duty at the time of supply of the cylinder at their house and such an act on the part of the ops Konnagar Gas Service is no doubt unfair trade practice and at the same time negligent and deficient manner of service.Further in this regard IOC being a big company referred the matter for insurance company for compensation but that has not been decided and IOC did not take any step for supply such defective leakage cylinder though they consider that complainant no.1 suffered damage of her right eye due to said leakage of gas and forwarded the same for compensation but that matter has not been at all decided by the IOC and their insurance company.So both the ops are equally responsible for such damage caused to the damage of eye of the complainant no.1 the wife of the complainant no.2 who is consumer under the ops.
Most interesting factor is that IOC received notice of the complaint whereas Konnagar Gas Service refused to accept the complaint that means they are aware of the fact of the complaint but did not contest and reason for not contesting this case is known to them because they have not appeared to contest this case on the ground that they are well aware that they had their laches and at delivery point, the distributor did not discharge his duties and responsibility did not check the gas cylinder in the delivery point in presence of the customers and for which a defective leaking gas cylinder caused the damage of retina of complainant no.1 and as because they have their no defence, they did not appear.
So, considering their negative attitude and no eagerness to defend the case we are inclined to hold that ops are well aware of the fact that retina of the complainant no.1 was damaged due to leakage of gas cylinder and that gas cylinder was no doubt a defective gas cylinder which was proved from the fact and subsequently complainant no.2 made a complaint to the distributor of the said gas cylinder.
Relying upon the unchallenged testimony and also the documents including the letter of IOC, we are convinced to hold that complainant by filing their evident and document have proved the deficiency and negligence and at the same time callous activities of the ops beyond any manner of doubt and no doubt for the callous activities and negligent and deficient manner of service, complainant’s wife suffered damage in her right eye and also spent Rs. 50,000/- for such treatment but ultimately the retina is not improved but such incident has not been properly entertained by the IOC or the distributor and for which we are convinced to hold that ops are no doubt deficient and negligent and callous in discharging their duties and to provide proper service and to provide proper gas cylinder to the customer and for their negligent and deficient manner of service and callous activities the damage in the eye of the complainant no.1 was caused for which no doubt ops jointly and severally are liable to pay compensation.
In the result, this complaint succeeds exparte.
Hence, it is
Ordered,
That the complaint be and the same is allowed in exparte form against the ops of Rs.5,000/- each.
Ops jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs. 75,000/- for incurring the cost of treatment of eye of complainant no.1, travelling expenses and for other hazardous and it must be paid by the ops.
Ops jointly and severally shall have to pay the litigation cost and also the compensation within one month from the date of this order for non-compliance of this order, ops shall have to pay penal damages at the rate of Rs.100/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected, it shall be deposited to this Forum.
If it is found that ops are reluctant to comply this order, in that case penal proceeding u/s 25 read with section 27 of C.P. Act 1986, shall be started for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed upon ops.
