G S BAL Vs. KALISWARI FIRE WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant G. S. Bal and his ward Master Gagandeep Singh Bal, aged 13 years filed this complaint under Sec.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . Gagandeep Singh Bal, a student of 7th Class is living with complainant No.1, G. S. Bal. On the occasion of Diwali-1995 the complainant No.1 along with complainant No.2, Master Gagandeep on 23.10.1995 went to the market of Sector 44-C, Chandigarh to purchase fire crackers in order to celebrate Diwali festival. They purchased fire crackers from respondent No.4, M/s. Rummy Stores, Sector 44d, Chandigarh who had put up a stall in the market. The complainant No.1 purchased crackers named 'bullet' bearing 'cock' brand which were manufactured by respondent No.1, M/s. Sri Kaliswari Fire Works, Sivakasi, Tamilnadu. The complainants purchased alleged crackers worth Rs.700/- as part of other crackers. In the evening of 23.10.1995 at about 9.30 p. m. complainant No.1 lighted one of the 'bullet' which was manufactured by respondent No.1 and after lighting, Master Gagandeep retreated by 10 to 15 feet to join his friends, mother and guardian, the said cracker exploded with a loud sound. Although the said child was standing quite far away yet a splinter from the said cracker ripped through his left eye-lid and hit the eye-ball. The complainant was hospitalized and the injury being serious, he was referred to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGI), Chandigarh where he was operated on the intervening night of 23/24.10.1995 and his 1.5 cm. cut on the eye-lid was stitched besides repairing the corneal wound. Thereafter he remained in the PGI as an indoor patient till 30.10.1995 and thereafter outdoor patient. On 6.11.1995 the PGI Authorities expressed their inability to either cure or treat the eye of the child. Inspite of the best efforts of leading Eye Surgeons of Chandigarh, Amritsar and Madras his eye could not be saved. The complainant has prayed that the strict action be taken against respondent Nos.1 to 3 and they be directed to pay the following compensation : (1) pay Rs.20 lacs as compensation/damages to the complainants along with 24% interest from the date of the said accident till realization of the said amount, for the loss and injury suffered by the complainants due to the negligence of O. P. Nos.1 to 3; (2) discontinue the unfair trade practice of manufacturing and selling the hazardous fire crackers; (3) withdraw the fire crackers namely 'bullet' and other fire crackers from sale, which have not been ma-nufactured by them in accordance with the explosive rules and other such guidelines/instructions; and (4) to pay the costs of the proceedings. Consequently complainant No.1 approached Dr. B. R. Sharma, a Forensic Science Expert and sought his opinion regarding constitution/composition of the crackers in dispute. Out of the 10 packets, 8 packets containing the total of 80 such crackers were still with the complainants and all those 80 crackers were supplied to the Expert who ultimately conducted tests thereon. According to his report dated 8.8.1996 he opined that the manufacturer has not manufactured the crackers according to the specified rules and that the use of compacted soil got baked in the process of firing which resulted in fragmental missiles and one such missile had damaged the eye of complainant No.2. The observations made in his report are as under : "the use of compacted soil which got baked in the firing process is not only illegal, but it is highly dangerous. The fragment missiles could be truly mini-missile which could prove highly dangerous especially to the clientele, the Mini-Men-the children. Not only they can destroy eyes but in some cases, they could prove far more dangerous even at unbelievable ranges. " The expert has mentioned in his report that the 'base plug and top plug' in the tested fire crackers were so hard and tough that it could not be broken with hands. The expert has opined that the main objective of the manufacturer of the said cracker, was to create maximum explosive noise and by doing so the manufacturer had created a gun like situation, and the use of tight plugs instead of paper and strings, allowed the development of high pressure in the cracker like guns projectiles which is against the rules. The top plug becomes the main projectile and its fragments act like mini bullets. The perusal of the report indicates that the crackers manufactured by the respondent under the trade name "bullet" did not conform to the specifications prescribed under the Explosives Act, 1884.

(2.) In the complaint it has been averred that against the purchase of fire crackers no bill was demanded or given. Further during the Diwali of 1996 the complainant again purchased 10 boxes of the similar fire crackers manufactured by respondent No.1 from Classic Emporium, Sector 44d, Chandigarh and the receipt of the same was obtained. The complainant has averred that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are carrying on unfair trade practice and are offering the hazardous fire crackers for sale to the general public every year, specially on the occasion of Diwali. Thousands of children and adults received injuries due to manufacturing defects in fire crackers but manufacturers of fire crackers go-scot free for want of proper awareness amongst the public as the cause of the injuries is not investigated at all.

(3.) The learned Counsel of the complainants during arguments raised an objection saying that the present Bench of the Commission is barred from hearing this case because of the absence of President of the Commission.