Deepa and Another Vs. the Proprietor, Thampuratty Gas Agency and Another

Deepa and Another vs The Proprietor, Thampuratty Gas Agency and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram Decided Jan 31, 2012

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1108466

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1108466
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Judge: The Honourable Shri. Justice K.R. Udayabhanu President
Decided On: Jan 31, 2012
Case Number: First Appeal No. A/11/618 (Arisen out of Order Dated 16/07/2011 in Case No. CC/07/135 of District Thiruvananthapuram)
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Deepa and Another

Respondent

The Proprietor, Thampuratty Gas Agency and Another

Excerpt

.....vs. sri.bijoy kumar roy and others in revision petition nos.850-851/1996 dated, 5th august 1999 wherein the delay on the ground of the assurances given by the dealer therein was found to be sufficient. 4. in the instant case we find that the statement in the affidavit filed by the 2nd complainant that he had submitted the legal heirship certificate as directed by the opposite party stands not disputed. of course the 2nd complainant has not produced any objective evidence with respect to the accident sustained by him and treatment under gone. the 2nd complainant could have been directed to produce the same. all the same we find that in view of the nature of the claim that a person has died on account of the alleged manufacturing defect of the gas cylinder etc and in view of the fact that a proper delay condonation petition has been filed and in view of the fact that the sworn affidavit of the 2nd complainant that he had submitted the legal heirship certificate as directed by the 1st opposite party and the first opposite party had assured to contact the manufacturer of the gas cylinder and the insurance company and pay the compensation we find that the forum ought to have allowed the delay condonation application filed. 5. in the circumstances the order of the forum is set aside. the appeal is allowed. the matter is remitted back to the forum for disposal on merits. the matter stands posted before the forum on 29.2.2012. office will forward the lcr along with a copy of this order to the forum.

Full Judgment

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT

The appellants are the complainants in CC.135/07 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The application to condone the delay in filing the complaint vide I.A.192/09 was dismissed and consequently the complaint was also dismissed.

2. The complainants are the LRs/daughter and son of the deceased who sustained burn injuries on 17.5.04 when igniting the gas stove and died on 24.5.04. The complaint was filed on 24.5.07 ie beyond the period of limitation stipulated in the statute. It is after filing the complaint that the delay condonation petition was filed to condone the delay of 335 days. In the affidavit filed by the 2^nd complainant/son of the deceased in support of the application it is mentioned that soon after the incident the matter was reported to the 1^st opposite party/gas agency who assured that adequate compensation will be awarded after consulting with the parent department, M/s Indian Oil Corporation and Insurance Company. Subsequently the 1^st opposite party asked them to produce a certificate from the Taluk office. Accordingly the certificate dated was 24.09.2004 from the Taluk office was produced. He used to make enquiries. In the meantime the deponent met with an accident and was bed ridden for a couple of months. He is the only male member of the family. Hence the delay occurred.

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the above legal heirship certificate was produced and waited for the opposite parties to take a decision on the matter and subsequently lawyer notice dated:5.4.07 was issued. In the reply notice on 28.4.07 the opposite parties have admitted that there is a valid insurance coverage with 2^nd opposite party/insurance company. In the reply notice the allegation is with respect to the negligence on the part of the deceased. The appellant has relied on the decision of the National Commission in West Bengal Agro Industries Corporation Vs. Sri.Bijoy Kumar Roy and Others in Revision Petition Nos.850-851/1996 dated, 5^th August 1999 wherein the delay on the ground of the assurances given by the dealer therein was found to be sufficient.

4. In the instant case we find that the statement in the affidavit filed by the 2^nd complainant that he had submitted the legal heirship certificate as directed by the opposite party stands not disputed. Of course the 2^nd complainant has not produced any objective evidence with respect to the accident sustained by him and treatment under gone. The 2^nd complainant could have been directed to produce the same. All the same we find that in view of the nature of the claim that a person has died on account of the alleged manufacturing defect of the gas cylinder etc and in view of the fact that a proper delay condonation petition has been filed and in view of the fact that the sworn affidavit of the 2^nd complainant that he had submitted the legal heirship certificate as directed by the 1^st opposite party and the first opposite party had assured to contact the manufacturer of the gas cylinder and the insurance company and pay the compensation we find that the Forum ought to have allowed the delay condonation application filed.

5. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the Forum for disposal on merits. The matter stands posted before the Forum on 29.2.2012.

Office will forward the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum.

Same Court & Year Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thi... Same Parties Deepa and Another vs The Proprietor, Thampuratty Gas Agency a... Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge The Honourable Shri. Justice K.R. Udayabhanu President