Cylinder Blast Due To Gas Leakage, Thrissur District Commission Holds Indian Oil Corporation Liable For Deficiency In Service

Smita Singh

17 Feb 2025 9:30 AM

  • Cylinder Blast Due To Gas Leakage, Thrissur District Commission Holds Indian Oil Corporation Liable For Deficiency In Service

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (Kerala) bench of Sri C.T. Sabu (President), Smt. Sreeja S. (Member) and Sri Ram Mohan R. (Member) held 'Indian Oil Corporation' liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for manufacturing defects in a gas cylinder, which blasted due to an internal gas leakage. Brief Facts: The Complainant purchased a...

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (Kerala) bench of Sri C.T. Sabu (President), Smt. Sreeja S. (Member) and Sri Ram Mohan R. (Member) held 'Indian Oil Corporation' liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for manufacturing defects in a gas cylinder, which blasted due to an internal gas leakage.

    Brief Facts:

    The Complainant purchased a gas cylinder, manufactured by Indian Oil Corporation (“IOC”), from Sree Guruvayoor Indane Services (“Dealer”). On 7.12.2013, the cylinder exploded thunderously. Allegedly, the cylinder exploded when it was kept in an unused condition. The explosion caused extensive harm to the Complainant's premises. IOC and the Dealer were informed about the incident. The representatives from the IOC and the Dealer visited and photographed the Complainant's premises. Subsequently, the Complainant's claim for damages was forwarded to United India Insurance Company (“Insurance Company”), as IOC had a public liability insurance policy with the Insurance Company. However, the claim was not processed.

    Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur, Kerala (“District Commission”). He contended that the explosion resulted from the supply of a defective LPG cylinder, attributed to the Dealer and IOC. He demanded a compensation of Rs. 2.5 Lakh, along with legal costs.

    Contentions of the Opposite Parties:

    The Dealer contended that the cylinder was delivered in a defect-free condition after performing the pre-delivery checking. It also alleged that no harm was caused to the Complainant's premises, and the cylinder was stored in an adjacent shed. On the other hand, IOC contended that the explosion occurred due to an electronic short circuit in the Complainant's premises, which ignited the leaked LPG. It further contended that the Complainant's claim was forwarded to the Insurance Company for processing. However, the Insurance Company failed to initiate any action to settle the claim. The Insurance Company failed to appear before the District Commission. Therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte.

    Observations by the District Commission:

    The District Commission observed that the pressure and the regulator of the cylinder were undamaged, and the Complainant had stored it in an outhouse without connecting it with any stove. Therefore, it was evident that the LPG had leaked out from the unused cylinder only and the reasons were not external.

    It was further held that the manufacturing companies must ensure the robustness of the gas cylinders as LPG is a highly inflammable gas. Failure to do so would not only amount to deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice on the part of the manufacturer. The District Commission also referred to the deposition of the delivery boy of the Dealer, who admitted that he lacked the technical expertise to perform all pre-delivery checks. However, this lapse on part of the Dealer was attributed to IOC as it had a supervisory and administrative role.

    Therefore, it was held that the cylinder blasted due to IOC's manufacturing defects and thus, it was directed to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation for material loss, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- as legal costs to the Complainant. It was further held that IOC could recover this amount from the Insurance Company, as part of its public liability contract.

    Case Title: T.M. Lorence vs Proprietor, Sree Guruvayoor Indane Service and Ors.

    Case No.: CC 620/15

    Advocate for the Complainant: A.D. Benny

    Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Beky M Perumpillil (for Sree Guruvayoor Indane Service); P. Mohanakrishnan (for Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.); None for United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

    Date of Pronouncement: 27.01.2025

    Click Here To Read/Download The Order

    Next Story