Business Standard

IOC to pay Rs 10L to man who lost kin in cylinder blast

Image

Press Trust of India New Delhi
The apex consumer commission has directed the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) and an Indane LPG cylinder distributing agency in Karnataka to pay Rs 10.5 lakh to a man who lost his parents and daughter in a blast due to gas leakage in his house in 2008.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) observed that it was the duty of IOC and the agency to ensure safety of the consumers.

"It can be safely presumed that it was the duty of the OPs (opposite parties -- IOC and the agency) to take requisite steps to ensure safety of consumers. In the absence of any proof of negligence on the part of the complainants, it is evident that the incident took place due to certain fault/imperfection/shortcoming in the cylinder supplied to the family," a consumer forum bench headed by presiding member B C Gupta said.
 

"The whole family had to pay a very heavy price on account of the incident in which three lives were lost and there was huge damage to the property," the commission said.

While dismissing the appeal filed by IOC, it allowed the company and the agency to recover the money from their insurance company as per its terms and conditions.

According to the complaint filed by Karnataka-native Ravindra Panduranga Rao, on April 23, 2008, while his father was changing the regulator from an empty gas cylinder to a new one, the pin inside the neck of the cylinder slipped inside resulting in gas leakage.

It was further alleged that when a light switch was turned on, a fire broke out resulting in the death of his father, mother and daughter. His wife survived the blast.

The district forum allowed the complaint and awarded compensation to Rao which was challenged by IOC with the firm claiming that it had ensured all compulsory checks and safety precautions while bottling LPG into cylinders before sending them to the distributor.

The company and the agency denied all the allegations and blamed the consumer for gross negligence while claiming that had there been a manufacturing defect in the cylinder, the mishap could have occurred earlier.

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

Don't miss the most important news and views of the day. Get them on our Telegram channel

First Published: Jan 31 2017 | 8:07 PM IST

Explore News