National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs Shri Hansmukhbhai M. Patel, on 13 August, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO.527 of 2006 (From the Order dated 29.06.2006 in Complaint Case No.81/2000 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Shikhar Complex, Naurangpura, Ahmedabad, Gujarat .. Appellant Vs. 1. Shri Hansmukhbhai M. Patel, 2. Shri Deepakbhai Patel, 3. Smt. Puriben M. Patel, (Legal heirs of Late Manubhai M. Patel) All residents of 51, Tejendra Nagar Society, Virat Nagar Road, Behind GIDC, Odhav, Ahmedabad Gujarat-392415 4. Chief Officer, Ahmedabad Co-operative Department Stores Ltd. Government Building, Sardar Park, Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad Gujarat 5. Chief Manager, The Ahmedabad Co-operative Department Stores Ltd. (Odhav Branch) Union-2, G.I.D.C. Estate, Beggars Home Road, Odhav, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 6. Chief Officer, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. D-03, Near I.T. Circle, Ahmedabad Gujarat-13 ..Respondents BEFORE: - HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. D.K. Singh and Ms. Kirti Yadav, Advocates For the Respondent No.1 to 3 : Mr. S.G. Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent No. 4 & 5 : Mr. K.P. Toms, Advocate For the Respondent No.6 : Mr.P.K. Sikka and Mr. Amet Sikka, Advocates PRONOUNCED ON: 13.08.2012 O R D E R
ASHOK BHAN, J., PRESIDENT Appellant, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. which was the Opposite Party No.1 before the State Commission has filed this Appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.06.06 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (in short, the State Commission) in Complaint Case No. 81/2000 whereby the State Commission while partly allowing the complaint has directed the Appellant and the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 herein (Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 before the State Commission) to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the Respondents/complainants jointly and severally along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till payment, within a period of eight weeks.
FACTS:-
Smt. Puriben M. Patel, wife of deceased Manubhai M. Patel, Respondent No.3 herein (Complainant No.3 before the State Commission) was having LPG gas connection No.17047 from the Appellant. On 20.02.2002 at about 8.00 P.M., when the Respondent No.3 tried to lit the gas, a fire took place as a result of which the Respondent No.3 and her husband got burn injuries. The fire was extinguished by the Fire Brigade. The husband of the Respondent No.3 died in the hospital on 22.2.2002 due to burn injuries and the Respondent No.3 remained in the hospital for about 37 to 40 days for her treatment. It was alleged that the fire took place due to supply of defective gas cylinder.
Complainants, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the State Commission seeking the compensation of Rs.7,35,605.50 for the alleged negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
Appellant as well as Respondents Nos.
4 to 6, on being served, entered appearance and filed their separate written versions. It was pleaded by the Appellant that the gas cylinder supplied was not defective. It was containing 10 Kg. of gas after the accident which itself proved that there was no defect in the gas cylinder. That the cylinder had been in use for the last 10 days. That the gas cylinder was checked by the IOC officials after the accident and it was found in working condition. That the accident took place due to use of non-ISI rubber tube and the gas leaked through the cracked end of the rubber tube. That as per terms of the Distributorship Agreement, relationship between the Indian Oil Corporation and the Distributor/dealer was on principal to principal basis and not principal to agent basis and, therefore, the liability of the Appellant came to an end as soon as the cylinders were delivered at the premises of the Distributors/Dealer. That there was no negligence on its part.
Respondent No. 4 and 5 herein in their separate written statement took the stand that the accident took place due to leakage from the gas cylinder which was a manufacturing defect and they being the distributor/dealer were not liable to compensate the complainants for manufacturing defect.
Insurance Company in its separate written statement denied its liability to pay the compensation on the ground that the necessary documents were not supplied to it by the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 in respect of the accident.
State Commission after taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the Appellant and the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the Complainants/Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment, within a period of eight weeks from the date of passing of the order.
Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4, i.e. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 accepting the order of the State Commission, have not filed any appeal. IOC has filed the present appeal challenging the order passed by the State Commission.
Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant contends that the Appellant appointed M/s. Apna Bazar as its distributor for sale of liquefied petroleum gas INDANE in cylinders only for household consumers and commercial consumers. Distributionship Agreement was entered into between the distributor/dealer and the IOC. Clause 17 of the said agreement clearly postulates the distributor to act as principal and not as an agent. The responsibility of the Appellant comes to an end as soon as the cylinders are delivered at the premises of the respective distributors. Thereafter, it is the responsibility of the distributor to take care and caution in accordance with the instructions issued by the Appellant. The distributor is not an agent but the principal as relationship between the Appellant and the distributor as per terms of agreement is on principal to principal basis. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Consumer Protection Council and Anr. (1994) 1 SCC 397 and the three Members judgment of this Commission in the case of M/s. Flame Gas Services & Ors. Vs. Aklesh Kumar Bansal & Ors.
CPR 1995 Vol. (I) 318.
We find substance in the submission made by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant. The Honble Supreme Court in IOCs case (Supra) has held that in view of clause 17 of the Dealership Agreement, the relationship between the dealer and the IOC is one of the principal to principal basis and not as a principal to agent. It was also held that since the relationship was of principal to principal basis, there was no privity of contract between the IOC and the consumer and, therefore, the complaint filed by the consumer against the IOC was not maintainable. Similar view has been taken by this Commission in the three Members judgment in Flame Gas Services case (supra).
Respectfully following the view taken by the Honble Supreme Court in IOCs case (supra) as well as by this Commission in Flame Gas Servicess case (Supra), impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside and appeal qua the Appellant is allowed. Since the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4, i.e., Respondent No.4 to 6 have not preferred any appeal against the order of the State Commission, order against them has attained finality and is kept intact. Complainants would be at liberty to execute the order of the State Commission against Respondent Nos. 4 to 6.
Sum of Rs.35,000/-
deposited by the Appellant at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the Appellant with accrued interest.
.. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(VINEETA RAI) MEMBER Yd