INDIAN OIL CORPORATION Vs. PYARE LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the Indian Oil Corporation, which was opposite party No. 3 before the District Forum, to challenge the impugned order dated 15.07.2011 passed by Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, 'the State Commission') in appeal No. 83 of 2009. Respondents 1 and 2 herein were complainants 1 and 2, respectively, and respondents 3 and 4 were opposite parties 1 and 2. Respondent No. 5 was opposite party No. 4 before the District Forum. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been described according to their status before the District Forum.

(2.) The factual matrix of this case, briefly stated, are that complainant No. 2, Kundan Lal was a subscriber of LPG connection with opposite party No. 2 since 28.1.1994. Complainant No. 1, Pyare Lal is son of complainant No. 2, Kundan Lal. The complainants had booked gas cylinder with opposite party No. 2 in October, 2005, which was supplied by them in the same month. It is alleged that on 24.10.2005 at about 12-12.30 p.m. when the seal of the gas cylinder was removed by complainant. No. 1, it started leaking out with great force and speed and as a result thereof, fire broke out in their house and complainant No. 1 received grievous burn injuries in this fire incident and upper portion of the building of the complainants got damaged extensively due to the blast during which the furniture and other article also got burnt in the fire. The incident of blast of fire was immediately reported to the police. It was alleged that there was negligence on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2, who were suppliers of LPG cylinder of opposite party No. 3, who is manufacturer of gas cylinder in bulk, because of which blast and the resultant fire had caused huge loss to the building and injuries to complainant No. 1. The complainant, therefore, lodged a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice wherein compensation amounting to Rs.6,50,000/- was claimed alongwith interest @18% per annum w.e.f. 25.10.2005 till the date of payment alongwith damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.

(3.) On being noticed, the opposite parties resisted and contested the complaint. The opposite parties 1 and 2 in their joint reply took the stand regarding the status of the complainants as consumers and the maintainability of the complaint on jurisdiction and on merits, it was pleaded that complainant No. 2 was a subscriber of the gas cylinder with opposite party No. 1 and the gas connection had been provided to him at his address at Sarupa Nand Building, Rohru and not at village Pawli where the complainant alleged to have subscribed to the supply of LPG cylinder, which is at a distance of 5 kilometers from the aforesaid Sarupa Nand Building. In view of this, it was contended by opposite parties No. 1 and 2 that the said cylinder had been unauthorisedly used by the complainants and as such they are not liable to indemnify the complainants. Opposite party No. 3, namely, Indian Oil Corporation, also did not accept the liability to indemnify the complainants because it was submitted that they are manufacturers of LPG cylinder in bulk which are supplied to opposite parties 1 and 2 after proper checking in the plant and having obtained insurance cover from opposite party No. 4 by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 in terms of clause 18 of the Distributorship Agreement, opposite party No. 4 is liable to indemnify the loss to the complainants. However, opposite party No. 4 in a separate reply contended that since there was no privity of contract between the complainants and opposite party No. 4, there was no deficiency in service on their part and hence the complainants are not entitled for any damage in the present case and the complaint deserves to be dismissed.