Tumakuru Consumer Commission Holds Shamika Indane Agencies Liable for Negligence in LPG Hose Replacement and Overcharging Consumers
Pranav B Prem
The Tumakuru District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising G.T. Vijaylakshmi (President) and Nivedita Ravish (Member), has held Shamika Indane Agencies, a distributor of Indane LPG cylinders, liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The distributor was found negligent in failing to replace an expired LPG hose pipe and for demanding additional charges at the time of cylinder delivery.
The complainant, Sri Ramesh Naik, was a consumer of Indane LPG supplied by Shamika Indane Agencies. The hose pipe connected to his stove had expired in 2022 after being in use for more than seven years. In June 2024, his family noticed leakage and the smell of LPG while cooking, raising concerns of safety. Despite repeated requests to the distributor’s office in July and August 2024, the issue remained unresolved. On 13 September 2024, he raised an online grievance through the mechanism provided by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL). However, the complaint was closed without hearing him or resolving the problem. He alleged that the distributor’s negligence in not replacing the expired hose pipe and regulator could have caused serious danger to life and property.
In addition, the complainant alleged that the staff of the distributor regularly demanded ₹50 to ₹80 extra on every cylinder delivery, over and above the billing amount. A legal notice dated 24 September 2024 was served on the distributor, but it went unanswered. Left with no alternative, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the Tumakuru District Commission against both Shamika Indane Agencies and IOCL, seeking compensation.
The distributor chose not to appear before the Commission and failed to file any version of its defence. IOCL, however, submitted that the distributor operated on a principal-to-principal basis and that IOCL could not be held liable for the distributor’s acts or omissions. It argued that LPG cylinders and regulators were supplied only after strict quality checks and that customers were advised to undergo periodic inspections. IOCL also pointed out that insurance coverage under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 had been arranged to cover risks. According to IOCL, no evidence was produced to show any defect in the cylinder or regulator, and therefore it could not be held responsible.
After considering the submissions, the Commission observed that the complainant’s requests for inspection and replacement of the expired hose pipe were ignored by the distributor, which amounted to clear deficiency in service. It further held that the act of collecting additional delivery charges ranging from ₹50 to ₹80 was an unfair trade practice. Since the distributor had failed to contest the allegations despite opportunities, the Commission accepted the complainant’s version and found the distributor liable. The Commission, however, dismissed the complaint against IOCL, holding that it was not responsible for the distributor’s omissions.
Accordingly, the complaint was partly allowed. Shamika Indane Agencies was directed to pay ₹25,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, along with ₹8,000 towards litigation costs. The Commission directed that the order be complied with within 45 days of its receipt, failing which further action would follow.
Appearance
For Opposite party 1: H.M.Ananthakumaraiah
For Opposite Party 2: Gireesha Kodgi
Cause Title: Shri Ramesh Naik V. Shamika Indane Agencies
Case No: CC 164/2024
Coram: G.T. Vijaylakshmi (President), Nivedita Ravish (Member)
