|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Considering that liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) is highly combustible, oil companies as well as distributors need to take every precaution to prevent accidents. While it is the duty of the oil company to ensure that only safe and defect-free gas cylinders are supplied, it is the responsibility of the distributor to ensure that those who deliver the gas at the consumer's doorstep, and those who attend to complaints about malfunctioning cylinders are fully trained for the job, and pay utmost heed to safety. Failure on these fronts could well lead to tragic accidents. Some of the cases pertaining to such accidents that have come up before courts highlight this point best. In the case of Flame Gas Service, Bikaner, vs Aklesh Kumar Bansal (FA No 520 and 575 of 1992, decided in 1994), for example, the mechanic, called in to find out why the stove was not lighting, kept on pressing the nozzle of the cylinder, releasing LPG. On smelling the gas, the customer, Sunita Bansal, even warned the mechanic not to try and ignite the stove. He ignored her warning and pressed the nozzle further, saying that he was releasing air and not LPG, and then lit the stove, resulting in a fire and the consequent death of Sunita. Here, the national consumer disputes redressal commission held the mechanic, who caused the fire, and the distributor, who had employed him, jointly and severally liable, and absolved the oil company of any liability. However, in the case of Madhuri Govilkar vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation (O P No 289 of 1996, decided in 2006), where the fire was caused by a defective cylinder, resulting in the tragic death of Mr Govilkar, the apex court held that both the dealer and the oil company were jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation of Rs 10,08,000 along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum and costs amounting to Rs 5,000. In another somewhat similar case decided in 2008, the apex court reiterated its view that an oil company cannot escape responsibility for a defective cylinder. Here, the cylinder had exploded, when the consumer, Kaluraj Jasraj Vyas, had tried to light the stove. Fortunately, there were no casualties, but the resultant fire had caused extensive damage to the two-storey building of the owner. In this case, the apex court held that under the Public Liability Clause, the insurance company would be liable to reimburse the dealer for the compensation he was required to pay the consumer. "At the same time, it is to be stated that because of the defective cylinder or the regulator, the accident has taken place and, hence, it cannot be held that the dealer or the HPCL would not be liable. Primary liability would be that of the HPCL", the commission said (New India Assurance vs Kaluraj Jasraj, FA no 196 of 2006, decided on January 30, 2008). Last month (January 29, 2010) the highest court in the country decided another case of sheer negligence on the part of an employee of the distributor, who directed the consumer to switch on the light in a room filled with gas from a leaky cylinder. The spark from the switch lit the gas, resulting in a major fire that eventually led to the tragic death of V Gopal ( M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs PSNR Combines RP No 4871 of 2008). In this case the national commission held the dealer liable and not the oil company. It based its decision on the fact that: (a) the fire was caused by the negligence of the distributor's employee; (b) the agreement between the oil company and the distributor made it clear that the agent would be responsible for all claims pertaining to the sale of LPG; and (c) there was no contract between the oil company and the consumer. Besides, the Supreme Court had held in the case — the Indian Oil Corporation vs Consumer Protection Council, Kerala, that the provision of a contract was essential to raise a question of deficiency in service before the court. Thus only the dealer and the insurance company (on account of the insurance policy) were liable, the commission held. These orders should
force oil companies and distributors to pay more attention to safety
and ensure that the deliverymen and mechanics are well trained and
follow all safety norms without fail.
|
|||
|
|
|||
