Why your family might not be covered: NCDRC rejects claim for fatal LPG blast

The national commission noted that the LPG connection was registered in the name of the deceased’s brother, not the deceased himself. (Image enhanced using AI)

Commission’s findings

Rejecting these arguments, the NCDRC upheld the state commission’s reasoning and made several key observations.

1. Deceased was not registered consumer

• The national commission noted that the LPG connection was registered in the name of the deceased’s brother, not the deceased himself.
• The complaint was also not filed by the registered consumer.
• “The deceased was not the consumer of the respondents… the complainants also are not consumers,” the national commission held.

2. No locus standi for parents

• The national commission ruled that since the complainants (parents) were neither the registered consumer nor direct beneficiaries under the Act in this context, they lacked locus standi to file the complaint.
• It emphasized that the Consumer Protection Act requires a direct consumer-service provider relationship.

3. Use of cylinder by another person not enough

• The national commission acknowledged that family members may use LPG connections but drew a distinction between casual use and legal entitlement.
• Merely using a gas connection “with prior approval” of the registered consumer does not automatically confer consumer status, the order clarified.

4. No deficiency in service proven

• On merits, the national commission also noted that investigations found no conclusive evidence of gas leakage from the cylinder.
• The cylinder’s nozzle was intact and showed no signs of burning.
• The fire may have resulted from improper usage or placement of the stove.

5. On insurance liability

• The insurer, United India Insurance Company, argued that it was not liable since the deceased was not the insured consumer.
• The incident may have occurred due to negligence.
• The national commission accepted this position, noting that insurance coverage applied to registered consumers and not third parties in such circumstances.

Final verdict

• The national commission upheld the state commission’s order and declined to examine other issues, stating that the lack of consumer status was sufficient to dispose of the case.
• However, it granted liberty to the appellants to pursue remedies through appropriate legal proceedings under other laws, if available.

Background: Fatal LPG cylinder fire

• The case traces back to a tragic incident on November 17, 2015, when Rahees Khan sustained severe burn injuries after an LPG cylinder caught fire while he was cooking at a residence in Sarkanda, Bilaspur.
• According to the complaint, the cylinder allegedly lacked a safety washer and leaked gas, triggering the fire.

• Khan suffered approximately 70 per cent burns and later succumbed to his injuries on November 22, 2015, at a hospital in Bilaspur.
• The deceased’s parents subsequently approached the state commission seeking compensation of Rs 5 lakh for financial loss, Rs 10 lakh for mental agony.
• The parents also sought interest and costs, alleging deficiency in service by the gas agency, Indian Oil Corporation, and the insurer.

State commission rejected claim

• The Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, by its order dated June 3, 2017, dismissed the complaint.
• It held that the deceased was not the registered consumer of the LPG connection.
• The gas connection was in the name of his brother.
• The accident did not conclusively establish a defect in the cylinder.
• The complainants then challenged this decision before the national commission.

Key issue: Who qualifies as ‘consumer’?

• Before the national commission, the central legal question was whether the deceased, who was using the LPG cylinder but was not the registered connection holder, could be considered a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

• Counsel for the appellants argued that the definition of “consumer” should be interpreted broadly to include beneficiaries of services, including family members using a gas connection.
• They relied on precedents such as Spring Meadows Hospital vs Harjot Ahluwalia to contend that beneficiaries of services are entitled to protection under consumer law.

MP High Court stays ouster of teacher who posted video on LPG shortage

On March 25, the Madhya Pradesh High Court stayed the suspension of a government school teacher who was penalised over a Facebook video referring to an LPG shortage, holding that disciplinary action cannot be initiated “mechanically” or under external pressure without proper application of mind.

A bench of Justice Ashish Shroti was hearing a writ petition filed by a government teacher Saket Kumar Purohit, a primary school teacher posted in Shivpuri district challenging his suspension order dated March 13 issued after he posted the video about an alleged LPG shortage.