GANGA GAS SERVICE Vs. LALITA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question involved in this appeal is regarding replacement of a Gas Regulator Mrs. Lalita Sharma of

(2.) Mr. Mukand Gupta, Advocate for the appellant has argued that before the District Forum, an application was moved for getting the regulator produced in the Court to see if the same was leaking or not. Since no order was passed on the application the application was prejudiced. There is no force in this contention. Such a request was made before the District Forum as would be clear from the order dated July 30,1997. The regulator was produced before the District Forum but a new plea was sought to be raised by the opposite party that the regulator produced was fake. Still an opportunity was allowed to the opposite party to produce his record or to get the certificate from the Indian Oil Corporation produced to prove that the regulator was fake one. Subsequently, opportunity for summoning the witnesses was also provided. It appears that none of the parties availed such facility and ultimately on August 13, 1997, the complaint was finally disposed of on the material produced. When the regulator was produced before the District Forum and the assertion of the complainant as given in the complaint supported by her affidavit was that the regulator was leaking, the same was rightly accepted. It was incumbent upon the opposite party to replace the same for which finally directions were given.

(3.) Mr. Mukand Gupta, Advocate has argued that regulator is supplied by Indian Oil Corporation and the Corporation was not impleaded as a party; the appellant merely supplies gas as provided by the Company and cannot directed to replace the regulator. This contention cannot be accepted. No doubt, Corporation as per agreement entered into with the consumer supplies the regulator as well as gas/refills but it is done through their agent so appointed through the country. Ganga Gas Service at Mansa is one of such agents. Virtually, the directions to the agent are directions to the Corporation. It is in between the opposite party and the Corporation to secure and replace the leaking regulator. We cannot ignore the danger involved in using leaking regulator. Rather Agency of its own should have inspected the regulator fixed at the premises of the complainant and taken steps to replace the same promptly finding it leaking. It was surprising that such a cause was brought before the District Forum without realising the hazardous danger involved in the use of a defective regulator. While dismissing the appeal with costs of Rs.500/-, we direct the appellant to promptly replace the defective regulator within a week from receipt of copy of this order. It would be left to the opposite party to claim a new regulator from the Company subsequently. In case new regulator is not available, the replacement should be done temporarily with an old regulator but without any defect and on getting a new regulator replace the same with a new one. Ultimately expenses are to be met by the Indian Oil Corporation.