The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed an appeal by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (HPCL) against an order by a lower body that imposed heavy damages on the company after faulty fixation of gas-tube led to an explosion at the premises of a customer.
HPCL and its gas agency were told to pay Rs 2.25 lakh in damages and Rs 25,000 in terms of compensation to V Venkateshwar Reddy, a resident of Kurnool in Andhra Pradesh, though both of them tried to shift the responsibility for the accident from themselves.
Both HPCL and the gas agency argued that the explosion was not caused by any fault of theirs.
The gas agency said the pipe was fixed at 10.30 a.m. and the explosion occured after almost 15 hours. So, it said, the fault could not have been in how the repair was carried out.
HPCL, on its part, said it had a pre-existing agreement with its gas agency that the gas agency’s actions were as ‘principal’ and not as an agent of HPCL. As a result, the agency shall be responsible in respect of all contracts or agreements entered into by him with the customers for sale of LPG and matters related therewith.
In view of this, HPCL argued that only the dealer is liable and responsible for its acts of omission or commission, if any, and, therefore, no liability could be fastened on Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. for the same.
All the three levels of district courts dismissed the gas agency’s argument that said that the cause of the explosion has not been established.
Note: The NCDRC is yet to upload the details of the order on their website. It would be interesting and important to note how and under what conditions did the commission ignore the arguement of HPCL and fix responsibility on them.
Article referred: http://rtn.asia/d-r/12642/hpcl-to-pay-for-gas-explosion-at-customer-premise-after-faulty-repair
HPCL and its gas agency were told to pay Rs 2.25 lakh in damages and Rs 25,000 in terms of compensation to V Venkateshwar Reddy, a resident of Kurnool in Andhra Pradesh, though both of them tried to shift the responsibility for the accident from themselves.
Both HPCL and the gas agency argued that the explosion was not caused by any fault of theirs.
The gas agency said the pipe was fixed at 10.30 a.m. and the explosion occured after almost 15 hours. So, it said, the fault could not have been in how the repair was carried out.
HPCL, on its part, said it had a pre-existing agreement with its gas agency that the gas agency’s actions were as ‘principal’ and not as an agent of HPCL. As a result, the agency shall be responsible in respect of all contracts or agreements entered into by him with the customers for sale of LPG and matters related therewith.
In view of this, HPCL argued that only the dealer is liable and responsible for its acts of omission or commission, if any, and, therefore, no liability could be fastened on Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. for the same.
All the three levels of district courts dismissed the gas agency’s argument that said that the cause of the explosion has not been established.
Note: The NCDRC is yet to upload the details of the order on their website. It would be interesting and important to note how and under what conditions did the commission ignore the arguement of HPCL and fix responsibility on them.
Article referred: http://rtn.asia/d-r/12642/hpcl-to-pay-for-gas-explosion-at-customer-premise-after-faulty-repair
Hey...Great information thanks for sharing such a valuable information
ReplyDeleteHindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited
12-month EPS
total traded volume