FLAME GAS SERVECE BIKANER Vs. AKLESH KUMAR BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of First Appeals Nos. 520 and 575 both of 1992 as both cases arise out of the order dated May 8, 1993 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan at Jaipur.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to these appeals are: that the present Respondent No. 1 in Appeal No. 520 of 1992 Shri Aklesh Kumar Bansal is the husband of Smt. Sunita Bansal, since deceased and Respondents Nos. 2 & 3 who are the minor sons of Respondent No. 1 and Sunita, deceased had filed a complaint against M/s. Flame Gas Service and one Shri Poonam Chand Rawat, who were Opposite Parties Nos. 1 & 2 in the complaint and now Appellants in First Appeal No. 520 of 1992. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation, who was arrayed as Opposite Party No. 3 in the said complaint is the Appellant in the other Appeal No. 575 of 1992. In Appeal No. 575 of 1992, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. has made all the other parties as Respondents. The parties wi11 be referred to in these appeals as they were arrayed in the complaint. In the complaint, the complainant had alleged that they are Indane gas consumers having gas connection No. F -407. Opposite Party No. 1 had supplied to Complainant No. 1 a refilled gas cylinder on 18th Decenber, 1989 against payment. The mother of the complainant No. 1 wanted to lit the stove but as it did not lit. Complainant No.lwent to Opposite Party No. 1 at about 3.30 p.m. and got a complaint registered. Opposite Party No. 1 sent their mechanic, Shri Poonam chand (Opposite Party No. 2) at about 5.30 p.m. on the same day. It may be mentioned here that one Shri desh Raj Complainant No. 4 also came to the house of Complainant No. 1 because he was supplied a gas cylinder by Opposite Party No. 3. The complainants have alleged that the gas cylinder supplied to Complainant No. 4 was also defective so he went to the house of Complainant No. 1 to call the mechanic to check his gas cylinder also. The complainants have alleged that while repairing the gas cylinder supplied to Complainant No. 1, Opposite Party No. 2 began to press the nozzle of the cylinder with the help of a screw -driver due to which gas began to come out from the cylinder and spread in while of kitchen, gallery and rooms etc. Smt. Sunita Bansal, wife of Complainant No. 1 and Complainant No. 4 felt the gas smell. Smt. Sunita went inside the kitchen and asked the mechanic not to lit the match stick but Opposite Party No. 2 passed reluctant comment and said that he used to repair such defective gas cylinders every day. According to him, there was air in the cylinder which he was rejecting, and not the gas. After a gap of few minutes, he again pressed the cylinders nozzle for 7 -8 minutes and despite the protest of all the persons present there, Opposite Party No. 2 connected the regulator to the cylinder and lighted the stove to check. His hand did not reach the burner. Meanwhile the has which had spread caught fire in which Complainant No. 1, his wife Smt. Sunita, Complainant No. 4 Shri Deshraj and the mechanic -Shri Poonam chand all were seriously burnt. It is said that on hearing the noise, the neighbours came to the house of Complainant No. 1 and helped them to extinguish the fire. All the injured were taken to the hospital. However, out of these persons who had received burn injuries, on 14th February, 1990. Complainant No. 1 had to remain in the hospital for his treatment from 18th December, 1989 to 12th January, 1990 and remained on leave up to 31st January, 1990. Shri Deshraj, Complainant No. 4 remained in hospital from 18th December, 1989 to 6th January, 1990 and took long leave from his service. The statement of Shri Deshraj was recorded in the hospital on 19th December, 1989 and First Information Report was recorded. According to the Complainant, Complainant No. 4 is also a consumer of the gas supplier of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The Complainants prayed for and award of Rs. 8,85,000/ - as compensation, as detailed in the Complaint from Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally together with interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of complaint till realization. The complaint was filed before the State Commission on 17th May, 1990.

(3.) OPPOSITE Party No. 3, i.e. Indian Oils Corporations version is also similar to the one filed by Opposite Party No. 1.