C.D. No. 81/1993:
P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President:
1. This complaint is filed claiming a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs with interest as compensation for the injury and loss sustained by him due to the defect in the cylinder supplied by the second opposite party who is the authorised dealer for distribution of LPG cylinders for cooking purpose being the agent of the first opposite party.
C.D. No. 82/1993:
2. This complaint is filed claiming a sum of Rs. 7,75,000/- with interest as compensation for the injury and loss suffered by the complainant due to defect in the cylinder supplied by the same second opposite party as agent and authorised dealer of the first opposite party.
3. The cause of action as well as the facts leading to the filing of both the complaints are the same, though the complainants are different, for convenience both the complaints can be disposed of by a common order.
4. The complainant in C.D. No. 82/1993 who was having a regulator took a gas cylinder of Indian Oil Corporation from one Suseelamma maternal aunt of his wife residing at Lakshmipuram, Nellore on 19.7.1991, carried the same to his residence at Atmakur. On 20.7.1991 at about 8.00 a.m. when he opened the seal of the cylinder and was about to connect it to the gas stove gas came out suddenly from the cylinder with heavy force which could not be controlled. Sensing the danger he asked his wife and daughter to run away and switched off the light. Himself and his son also took to heels. But the gas that escaped from the cylinder with tremendous force travelled beyond the house and caught fire from the stove in the Verandah of the opposite house where pan-cakes was being prepared. It backfired into the house of the complainant and the entire house which was of Madras roof was in blaze. The complainant and his son Ranjit aged 7 years received burn injuries on their face and other parts of the body. His wife and his daughter by name Purnima aged 9 years received injuries all over their body. Some neighbours and passers by also received injuries. The house of the complainant was completely gutted. So also his brothers house was damaged. Himself, his wife and children were admitted in the hospital of Dr. Sundara Rami Reddi, Atmakur and they were given first aid. As his daughter Purnima received 86% burn injuries she was advised to be shifted to Apollo Hospital, Madras and accordingly she was admitted there on the same day and was treated as inpatient till 24.7.1991. She finally succumbed to the injuries. The Experts Committee of the Indian Gas Company from Tirupati head office visited the spot on 22.7.1991 and on examination found that gas escaped from the cylinder and caught fire where pan-cakes were prepared. He accordingly filed this complaint claiming a sum of Rs. 7,75,000/- towards damage to the building, articles, furniture, medical expenditure for treatment of the complainant and compensation for the death of his daughter. There was no sympathetic attitude towards the complainant even to the notice issued by the latter.
5. The brother of the complainant by name Maddali Natarajan Setty while reiterating the same facts further stated that the gas escaped from the house of Maddali Ramakrishnaiah entered his house and damaged the same. Though notice was issued to the opposite parties the reply was not encouraging. Hence he filed C.D. No. 81/1993 claiming a compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs towards the value of the damaged building together with articles and furniture.
6. In the counter filed by the first opposite party Area Manager (LPG), Indian Oil Corporation in C.D. No. 81/1993 it is stated that the complainant is not a consumer inasmuch as he has taken a cylinder from a relative who is a consumer. The ill-fated cylinder was supplied by the second opposite party to one Suseelamma of Nellore meant for her use and she has no authority to lend it to others as the area of operation of each distributor will be within a radius of 5 kms. from the distributing point. Further the complainant is a resident of a different village by name Atmakur which is about 50 kms. away from Nellore and the latter is not authorised to receive it from Suseelamma or carry it to Atmakur. That apart the regulators will be supplied by the distributors to the consumers and they cannot be purchased from any unauthorised manufacturers and when spurious regulators are used there is every likelihood of mishap for which the first opposite party is not responsible.
7. Â More or less with similar allegation a separate counter is filed by the second opposite party.
8. Â In C.D. No. 82/1993 also the same contentions are raised in the counters filed by the opposite parties.
9. Â The complainants in both the C.Ds have filed affidavit evidence in lieu of chief examination and also filed Exs. A-1 to A-45. No affidavit evidence is filed on behalf of the opposite parties in both the C.Ds. and no documents are marked on their behalf.
10. Now the point for consideration is whether the complainants are consumers, if so, whether they are entitled to any compensation and to what relief the complainants are entitled to ?
11. In C.D. No. 81/1993 the complainant seeks to recover damages for the loss sustained to the building, furniture, household articles, etc., due to the gas leak that occurred on 20.7.1991 which caught fire and damaged the building and articles, etc.
12. In C.D. No. 82/1993 the complainant seeks to recover damages caused to the building, articles, furniture, medical expenses for the treatment of the complainant, his wife and children including compensation for the death of his daughter Purnima.
13. In both the complaints affidavit evidence was filed by the complainants. The opposite parties did not choose to cross-examine them. Therefore, the affidvait evidence which was filed in lieu of chief examination has to be treated as evidence of the complainants respectively.
14. As already stated no affidavit evidence was filed by the opposite parties much less either oral or documentary evidence. The complainant in C.D. No. 81/1993 filed Exs. A-1 to A-45 consisting of receipts for the expenditure incurred by him in Apollo Hospital, legal notices and replies, F.I.R., death certificate and valuation/loss certificate, etc. The same documents are marked in C.D. No. 82/1993 also. There is no dispute about these documents. Even then they are not of much relevance to decide the issues in these complaints.
15. Now the question is whether the complainants are consumers within the meaning of Section 2(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (âthe Act for short) ?
16. It is the case of the complainant in C.D. No. 82/1993 that he took the ill-fated cylinder from his relative residing at Nellore to use it in his place at Atmakur which is about 50 kms. away from Nellore and when the seal of the cylinder was removed the gas suddenly gushed out, caught fire and exploded which resulted in the death of his daughter Purnima besides causing damages to his house including furniture and other articles.
17. The complainant in C.D. No. 81/1993 is the neighbour of Mr. M. Ramakrishnaiah (complainant in C.D. No. 82/1993). According to him his house was also damaged because of the explosion of gas cylinder in the house of Ramakrishnaiah.
18. Mr. Koka Raghava Rao, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties contended before us that M. Ramakrishnaiah is not a consumer under Section 2(d)(i) of the Act, even if the expression is given widest possible interpretation. Section 2(d)(i) reads as follows :
â âConsumer means any person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose.â
19. The learned Counsel for the complainants sought to bring the complainants within the definition of this clause relying on the expression âwhen such use is made with the approval of such personâ and according to him Suseelamma has accorded approval for the use of the cylinder by Mr. Ramakrishnaiah. This argument appears attractive in the first flush and we do not find any difficulty to accept that there was tacit consent or approval from Suseelamma for the use of cylinder by Mr. Ramakrishnaiah. But the real question is, whether the entrustment of the cylinder for use by other than the person to whom it was supplied is legal. If the entrustment is legal and authorised there is no impediment to hold that the complainants would be entitled to claim compensation for the defective cylinder supplied by the second opposite party and manufactured by the first opposite party in view of the evidence on record.
20. Before we come to a decision on this question a look at the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1988. Clause (b) of Clause 2 defines cylinder as a metal container for storing liquefied petroleum gas and which shall conform to appropriate Indian Standard. No doubt a feeble argument is raised that inasmuch as the cylinder which was supplied to Suseelamma is defective and does not conform to appropriate Indian Standard it cannot be brought within the definition of the cylinder in this clause. We cannot accede to this contention. Though the cylinder is expected to conform to appropriate Indian Standards still a cylinder which does not so conform any the less is a cylinder. Further under Sub-clause (2) of Clause 3 it is stated in unambiguous terms that no person shall possess or use liquefied petroleum gas filled in cylinders or in bulk form unless he has received supply thereof from a distributor or from an Oil Company. Sub-clause (4) again expressed in unequivocal terms that no distributor shall supply liquefied petroleum gas filled in cylinders to any person other than a consumer possessing a valid authorisation from an Oil Company. These two sub-clauses in our view read together would express in unmistakable terms that supply to as well as possession by a person other than a consumer possessing a valid authorisation is illegal. In this case M. Ramakrishnaiah does not possess valid authorisation for possession of cylinder or for consumption of L.P. Gas.
21. Even as a matter of fact Sub-clause (3) of Clause 6 also postulates that no person shall possess gas cylinders etc., unless he is a consumer and the same has been supplied to him by a distributor. Therefore, it is clear that there is a clear embargo under the Act as well as rules for a person other than a consumer who has no valid authorisation from possessing the gas cylinder and that supply should be made through a distributor. This is not done in this case. Therefore, these provisions are offended.
22. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 envisages that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. As such the Act supplements but does not supplant the existing law. The intention of the Act is, therefore, clear that the Act has to respect and give effect to the existing law but cannot by-pass the same.
23. Viewed in this manner the conclusion is inescapable that M. Ramakrishnaiah is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(d)(i) of the Act. As a corollary of this the complainant in C.D. No. 81/1993 M. Natarajan Setty also is not a consumer. Therefore, both the complainants cannot claim any compensation against the opposite parties.
The complaints i.e., C.D. Nos. 81/1993 and 82/1993, therefore, fail and are accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances no costs.
This order does not prevent the complainants from approaching any other Forum under any other law, if they are so advised.
Complaints dismissed.