Shamika Indane Agencies Held Liable For Failure To Replace Expired LPG Hose Pipe And Charging Extra Amount For Delivery Of Cylinder

The Tumakuru District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising G.T Vijaylakshmi, President and Nivedita Ravish, Member has held Shamika Indane Agencies- a distributor of Indane LPG cylinder liable for failure to replace the expired hose pipe of the LPG connection of the complainant and charging Rs. 50/- to 80/- extra at the time of delivery of the cylinder apart from the billing amount. Brief facts: The complainant is a consumer having LPG gas connection of Indane LPG distributor- Shamika Indane Agencies ('distributor'). The hose pipe connected from LPG cylinder to complainant's cooking gas stove was seven year old pipe and its use expired in 2022.Near June 2024, the complainant's family members observed that there used to be LPG smell coming when they used the stove for cooking and hence, they immediately contacted the office of the distributor but the problem remained unresolved. The complainant then raised an online complaint dated 13.09.2024 through the grievance redressal mechanism provided by Indian Oil Corporation ('company'). Unfortunately, the complaint was closed at one side without providing to the complainant, an opportunity of being heard and without resolving the issue. As per the complainant, the act of not replacing the hose pipe and regulator of LPG cylinder post expiry might result in leakage and pose danger to the life and property of the consumers. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the distributor. Further, it was stated that the staff of the distributor also demanded Rs. 50/- to 80/- extra upon delivery of the cylinder apart from its billing amount which is an unfair trade practice. A legal notice dated 24.09.2024 was also issued to the distributor but no reply was received. Hence, a complaint was filed by the complainant against the distributor and the company before the Tumakuru district commission praying for appropriate compensation. The distributor and the company are collectively referred to as 'Opposite parties'. No submissions were made by the distributor. Submissions of the company: It was submitted that the distributor was appointed by Indian Oil Corporation on a principal-to-principal basis for sale of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) in houses. It was further submitted that the gas cylinder and pressure regulator were supplied in perfect condition after thorough quality checking. It was further submitted that the LPG confirms to the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) specification. The company argued that for the larger interest of all consumers, an insurance policy has been obtained under Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 for coverage of risks and bear all expenditures. The company submitted that it cannot be held liable for any omission / commission of the distributor since the relationship between the company and distributor is on a principal-to-principal basis. It was submitted that the distributor has insured the liability arising from any such accidents and therefore the insurance company is also a proper and necessary party to the complaint. As per the opposite parties, no proof was submitted by the complainant to prove any manufacturing defect in the cylinder or regulator. Observations of the commission: The commission examined the facts and documents submitted by the parties. It was observed that despite several opportunities granted to the distributor, it failed to file its version and address the arguments. Hence, the documents submitted by the company remained unchallenged. The bench observed that even after receiving a request from the complainant to check LPG connection hose pipe and regulator, the distributor neglected to address the problem and failed to change the hose pipe and LPG regulator. It was further observed that the act of demanding Rs. 50/- to 80/- extra upon delivery of LPG cylinder amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Thus, the complaint was allowed only against the distributor with the following reliefs: Rs. 25,000 as compensation Rs. 8,000 as litigation costs The complaint was dismissed against the company- Indian Oil Corporation. Case Title: Shri Ramesh Naik vs Shamika Indane Agencies Case Number: CC 164/2024 Advocate for Opposite party 1: H.M.Ananthakumaraiah Advocate for Opposite Party 2: .Gireesha Kodgi Date of Decision: 31.07.2025Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Shamika Indane Agencies Held Liable For Failure To Replace Expired LPG Hose Pipe And Charging Extra Amount For Delivery Of Cylinder

Aakanksha Bajoria

Tags