MADHURI GOVILKAR Vs. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS complaint is made against M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation (Opposite Party No.1) and M/s.Pelicon Gas Agency (Opposite Party No.2), alleging deficiency in service in supplying a defective LPG cylinder to the Complainants. It is contended that there was leakage of gas after refixing the regulator. The gas leakage was such that there was no peculiar smell which is conspicuous when the gas is being emitted or leaked. When the gas stove was sought to be lit by lighter by Shri Suresh Kumar Govilkar, husband of the Complainant No.1, the emitted gas and the cylinder caught fire which spread all throughout resulting in the death of Shri Suresh Kumar Govilkarkar. Hence this complaint is filed by his wife, his son and his daughter, claiming a compensation of Rs.25,62,500/-, and also award of interest on the amount from the date of the notice dated 31st October, 1995.

(2.) IT is pointed out that Shri Suresh Kumar Govilkar was a consumer of LPG manufactured by the Opposite Party No.1 and was registered with the dealer Respondent No.2. The LPG cylinder for usage was supplied at the residence of the Complainants, namely, 204, Pocket-D, Mayur Vihar, Delhi. On 26.8.1995 the LPG cylinder which was in use was exhausted and Shri Suresh Kumar Govilkarkar replaced the empty cylinder with a spare cylinder which was supplied by Respondent No.2 for a consideration on 12.8.1995 (which had been earlier booked on 3.8.1995). While the regulator was being fitted to the replaced cylinder Shri Govilkar and the Complainant No.1 heard some sound which was greater than the usual sound. Thereafter, the regulator was fixed. It is also pointed out that at the relevant time there was no peculiar smell which is conspicuous when the gas is emitted or when there is leakage of gas. When Govilkar started lighting the gas for preparation of tea, there was fire and within no time the fire spread. Shri Govilkar caught fire and raised alarm was raised. Thereafter, fire was brought under control with the help of certain people. But, the cylinder was still burning in the kitchen. It is contended that the cylinder was found burning all around the periphery of the bottom lip of the regulator with a dense yellow flame of approximately 9 inches in length and this could be only because of the defect in the cylinder. Information was given to the Police and Shri Govilkar was taken to hospital where he expired on 30.8.1995.

(3.) FROM the aforesaid facts it is contended that there is no dispute with regard to accidental burning of the cylinder and that the cylinder caught fire was also not disputed. It is further contended that Shri Govilkar had only replaced the regulator before lighting the gas and at that time unfortunate accident took place. At no point of time the Opposite Parties have stated that cylinder was not defective or was in proper order. Hence, on the basis of maxim "res ipsa loquitur" compensation should be awarded, as held by the Apex Court in "Shyam Sunder and Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan, (1974) 1 SCC 690 at 693-4.