The Punjab state consumer commission upheld the order of the district commission and ordered the oil company to pay Rs 11.11 lakh to the woman. (AI-generated image)
The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has upheld an order directing Bharat Petroleum and its distributor to pay Rs 11.11 lakh to a woman whose husband died in an LPG gas cylinder explosion in 2018.
A bench comprising presiding judicial member Harinderpal Singh Mahal and member Kiran Sibal was hearing an appeal filed by the oil company and its distributor against an order issued by the district commission.
Referring to the agreement between the company and its distributor, the commission noted in the June 22 order that the agreement cannot absolve them of their liability towards a consumer, and added, “The rights of a consumer cannot be defeated by relying upon inter se contractual arrangements (agreement among themselves) between the opposite parties, to which the consumer is not a party.”
According to the case records, the victim, who was the woman’s husband, had an LPG connection and the gas cylinder was installed by the oil company’s delivery person. On the intervening night of May 11 and 12, 2018, the couple was sleeping in the veranda in front of the kitchen when the vicitim woke up to drink water at around 3 am. He entered the kitchen and on switching on the light, there was a big explosion and the fire soon spread across the house.
The couple suffered serious burns and were admitted to a hospital. The man succumbed to the injuries on May 17, 2018, in the hospital. The woman alleged that she spent over Rs 2 lakh to treat her husband and Rs 75,000 for her own treatment, but neither the oil company nor the insurer paid them anything, citing that the explosion was due to the gas cylinder.
The woman sent a legal notice seeking compensation but in vain. She later moved the district consumer commission on September 20, 2024, which ordered the oil company, general insurance company and gas service to pay her Rs 11.11 lakh for medical expenses, litigation costs, compensation for the death as well as physical and mental harassment.
Advocate Anirudh Gupta, appearing for the gas service, argued that the woman was not their consumer but of one Resham Gas Service and that they had been wrongly named in the case. The counsel contended that the incident happened due to the woman’s negligence as she had not closed the nozzle of the gas. He also stated that the woman never filed any claim with the insurer or the oil company, regarding her loss.
The oil corporation’s counsel, advocate Aakriti Sharma, argued that the cylinder refill was supplied in good condition and the oil company’s liability came to an end as soon as the cylinders were delivered to the distributors, after which it became the liability of the distributor, who had taken all the necessary care and caution. Advocate Tushar Arora, representing the insurer, said the company was not informed about any claim regarding the loss and, hence, the complaint was “premature”.
However, advocate Harish Goyal, representing the woman, argued that the district commission had rightly decided on her complaint.
The state commission noted that neither the gas service nor the oil company showed any document to support their claim that the cylinder had been supplied by Resham Gas Agency.
On the contention of the gas service that the incident was a result of “sheer negligence” on the part of the woman, the state commission said, “No investigation report, expert opinion, or other substantive evidence has been produced to establish that the alleged negligence of the complainant or her family members was responsible for the occurrence. In the absence of any such evidence, the plea of contributory negligence remains a mere assertion and cannot be accepted as proof of the cause of the accident.”
The state commission held that “the complaint cannot be said to be premature merely because the insurance company was not intimated by the complainant before the institution of the proceedings,” as the insurance policies were bought by the gas service and the oil company for covering risks of LPG-related accidents. They had to inform the insurer so that a timely investigation could be done and the victims would get compensation without delay.
The commission, while upholding the amount to be paid to the woman, agreed that the district consumer forum had rightly observed that it was the duty of the manufacturer and distributor to provide a defect-free domestic LPG cylinder to the consumer with due care and precautions.
The ruling establishes the obligation of companies to ensure proper services and that the concerns of the consumers must not be ignored, causing them unnecessary inconvenience. For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and union territories (Punjab: 0800-22577) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.