NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. BABULAL LODHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case where a LPG cylinder on being connected to the regulator by the wife of respondent no.1/complainant started leaking. When a matchstick was ignited, the entire kitchen was engulfed with fire, causing damage to the property. It also resulted in injury to the inmates. The dealer/respondent no.3 (M/s Phoenix Distributors) was informed about the incident. Representative of respondent no.2/manufacturer (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited) also visited the site and assured all help. However, when no relief except the replacement of the defective cylinder was received, a consumer complaint came to be filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal (for short District Forum ). It was resisted by the dealer as well as the manufacturer. The National Insurance Company Ltd. (the present petitioner), to be called as Insurance Company here-after, was not made a party in the complaint. After considering the evidence adduced by the opposing sides, the District Forum found it to be a case of a defective cylinder having been supplied by the manufacturer and the dealer and, therefore, directed both the dealer and the manufacturer to jointly and severally compensate the complainant in a sum of Rs.1.00 Lakh. Aggrieved thereupon, all the three parties i. e. the complainant, the dealer as well as the manufacturer filed appeals before the M. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short State Commission) and challenged the award passed by the District Forum. Obviously, the complainant wanted the compensation to be enhanced while the dealer and the manufacturer pleaded for setting aside of the District Forum order.

(2.) The manufacturers plea before the State Commission was that their contract with the dealer was on principal-to-principal basis and they had no privity of contract with the complainant. Further, any defect noticed in a cylinder supplied by them to the dealer is required to be verified and tested before acceptance and the defective cylinders are required to be returned to the manufacturer. In this background, they submitted that they be absolved from any liability erroneously thrust on them by the District Forum.

(3.) The case of the dealer on the other hand was that the consumer himself had carried the gas cylinder to his residence and fixed the regulator thereon negligently, which resulted in the fire. It was further contended that a kerosene stove was burning side by side when the cylinder was to be connected, which is a clear violation of the guidelines issued to the consumers.