Skip to main content

HPCL to pay for gas explosion at customer premise after faulty repair

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

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court clarified on how to determine if an allegation of fraud falls under “Fraud Exception” to Arbitrability

In AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. vs HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from the interlocutory judgment and order passed in the appeal under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Bombay High Court in a dispute between HSBC and Avitel India. HSBC had alleged that the Appellants had committed fraud by siphoning off the funds provided by them. As the agreement entered into by HSBC and the Appellants contained arbitration clause, HSBC approached the Singapore Arbitration Centre and the arbitration committee so formed executed award in favour of HSBC who filed application before the Bombay High Court for execution of the award. The Appellants contended objected to the award on various grounds and further argued that as fraud has been alleged, the dispute cannot be arbitrated.  The Supreme Court has held that “serious allegations of fraud” as a ground for exemption from arbitral proceedings arise only if either o...
Post a Comment
Read more