D SHANKAR Vs. GOPI AGENCIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal assails the order dated 08.04.2003 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (hereafter, the State Commission) in Complaint Cases no.53 and 54 of 1995, dismissing the complaints filed by the appellant and his daughter. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred hereafter according to their status before the State Commission.

(2.) 2 (i) The case of the complainants (D. Shankar and his daughter, Sangeetha in two separate complaints) before the State Commission was that the opposite parties (OPs) 1 and 3 (respondents no 1 and 3 before us) were guilty of deficiency in service inasmuch as they supplied defective cooking gas (LPG) equipment, including gas cylinder and regulator because of which there was leakage of the gas and a fire in the house of the complainants/appellants on 21.06.1993 which caused severe burn injuries to Indumathi, the wife of the appellant as well as Sangeetha. Even after treatment at the Victoria Hospital, Bangalore and thereafter at the Christian Medical College (CMC), Vellore, Indumathi expired. Indumathi was also subjected to post mortem examination after she died. Sangeetha, in turn, had to undergo prolonged treatment as an in-patient at the Victoria Hospital for 2 months and thereafter as an outpatient for 9 months because she sustained 14% burn injuries, affecting her face, right hand, shoulder, waist, thighs and legs. The appellant registered a complaint with the local Police Station immediately after the fire accident which was registered by the Police. The Police visited the house and prepared a Panchnama about the incident and also seized the gas cylinder and regulator. After obtaining orders of the competent criminal court, OP 1, however, obtained possession of the said gas cylinder and regulator from the Police and supplied new cylinder, regulator and rubber tubing to the complainant which they were using since then. In the meanwhile, the complainant wrote several times to OPs 1 and 3 to pay compensation for the injuries suffered by his family but there was no response, even after personal visits and issuing a legal notice. This led to D. Shankar and Sangeetha filing separate complaints, claiming compensation, etc. , amounting to Rs.8.44 lakh from all the OPs. (ii) Before the State Commission, all the OPs vehemently contested the allegations in the complaints. (a) The main contention of OP 1 was that the complainants gas connection had been transferred to its jurisdiction from another Indane gas distributor in Bangalore in February 1992 and that the complainant had not obtained even one gas cylinder/refill from OP 1 ever since. There was thus no question of supply of any defective goods or deficiency in service on its part. Moreover, in a letter issued to OP 1 on 21.02.1994, D. Shankar had stated that OP 1 was not responsible for the accident that occurred on 21.06.1993 at his house. Hence the complaints were not based on facts and had been filed merely to tarnish the reputation of OP 1 who was a conscientious distributor of OP 3. (b) OP 2, on the other hand, accepted that OP 1 was a holder of an insurance policy to indemnify the loss/injury caused, inter alia, to bona fide customers of OP 1. However, according to OP 2, there was no privity of contract between the complainant (s) and OP 2 and hence the complaint (s) was/were not maintainable against OP 2. Further, it was not aware if the complainant (D. Shankar) was a customer of OP 1 and, in any case, the complainant (s) had not alleged any negligence on the part of OP 1 in the supply of gas cylinder and/or deficient service on the latters part. Moreover, neither the Fire Brigade nor the Police raised any suspicion of irregularity/negligence on the part of OP 1. Therefore, according to the terms of the insurance policy of OP 1 with OP 2, the latter was not liable to pay anything to the complainant (s ). (c) Finally, according to OP 3, though the complainant D. Shankar was a holder of an Indane cooking gas connection since 1976, assignment of his connection to OP 1 was made in February 1992 and he did not draw any cylinder/refill from OP 1 ever since. In fact, according to records, the last cylinder was drawn by the complainant from the previous distributor in March 1991. Hence, the complainant had not used an authorised cylinder since then and the cylinder in question (involved in the accident of June 1993) had not been supplied by any distributor of OP 3. Moreover, the complainant had committed a breach of contract with the distributor OP 1, because he had not obtained followed the contract conditions/precautions that are always incorporated on the reverse side of the subscription vouched issued by the distributor whenever a customer for a domestic LPG connection is enrolled. Further, the contractual relationship between OP 3 and any of its distributors was that of principal to principal and not of principal and agent. Hence, deficiency in service, if any, committed by a distributor, including OP 1, leading to injury to a customer attached to that distributor did not fasten any liability, even vicarious, on OP 3 to pay compensation to such a customer. Lastly, the in-house investigations of OP 3 had revealed that the gas leakage occurred because the complainant was using old tubing which had developed a cut/crack. (iii) On considering the pleadings of and evidence and documents produced by the parties, the State Commission passed the order mentioned above. The main point considered by the State Commission was the complainant had not been able to establish that the gas cylinder involved in the fire and consequent burn injuries to his wife and daughter had been drawn from the distributor OP 1 ever since his connection had been attached to the said distributor.

(3.) We have heard Ms Reetu Sharma Kathuria, Advocate who was appointed as Amicus Curiae by this Commission to assist with the case of the complainant/appellant and Mr. G. S. Mani and Mr. B. S. Sharma, Advocates on behalf of OP 3/ respondent 3. None was, however, present on behalf of either OP 1/respondent 1 or OP 2/respondent 2 though written submissions were filed on behalf of OP1 by Mr. M. Veerappa, Advocate who had appeared on behalf OP1 on earlier occasions. Ms Sharma Kathuria and Mr. K. Rajeev, Advocate (who had earlier appeared on behalf of OP 3) have also filed written submissions in support of their arguments.