S.K.M. Lodha, President ––– As both the complainants arise out of the one and the same incident, they were heard together and it will be convenient to dispose of by a common order.

2. Both the complainants in both the complaints are minor and they have filed the complaint through the natural guardian their grand father. Opposite Party No. 1 is the agent of Opposite Party No. 2 which deals in selling petrol, diesel and other products and it is bound by the acts done by opposite party No. 1. Opposite Party No. 3 in the complaint is an Insurance Company. Its name and address have not been mentioned and that opposite party No. 3 has been impleaded as opposite party to the complaint for it has insured the interest of opposite parties No. 1 and 2. It has been alleged that it is their responsibility, to render proper service to their customers and the persons who come at the business place. They should be provided with security and safety and adequate arrangements so that the customers may not be put to any loss. An averment has been made that for rendering service to the customers and for supplying goods, they realize desired fee and so the person who gets service and purchases the goods is a “consumer” within the meaning of S. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘the Act’ herein). It is said that the complainant in Complaint No. 73/90 and his brother were going on the scooter with their uncle to the market, that the uncle of the complainant stayed for taking petrol at the petrol pump of opposite party No. 1, that the complainant and his brother remained sitting on the scooter, that the complainant’s uncle was standing in que for taking petrol, that when the employee of opposite party No. 1 was filling petrol in motor cycles the petrol pipe started leaking and the nozzle was broken and the prtrol started spreading on the ground. The employee of opposite party No. 1 did not pay any heed to this and all of a sudden the petrol on the ground caught fire, on account of which the scooter of the complainant’s uncle was burnt and the clothes of the complainant caught fire and burns were caused on her body. The persons who were present there extinguished the fire and removed the burnt scooter from there and took it at some distance. The complainant and her brother were removed to S.M.S. Hospital. As a result of fire, the body of the complainant was burnt to a considerable extent and she had to remain as an indoor patient in the hospital. She has given the details of the treatment. It has been said that she was put to lot of inconvenience and their parents had to spend considerable amount. Despite treatment, her original health has not been restored and her face has become ugly. On grievances being raised opposite party No. 2 assured if that necessary investigation will be done and she will be paid compensation. On repeated requests the same reply was given. Opposite party No. 1 also told that action is being taken under the Petroleum Act and Explosives Act and the Police is doing investigation under the Penal Code but nothing was done. She had to undertake treatment in the hospital and three operations were performed upon her. In this connection she had to spend a considerable amount. The details of compensation have been given in para 7 of the complaint. In all she has claimed a sum of Rs. 9,70,000/- as compensation with interest @ 18% p.a. and costs of the complaint. A demand for the aforesaid sum as compensation was made but it was refused. As stated above, the complainant is minor and this complaint has been filed through her natural guardian. So far as Complaint Case No. 74/90 is concerned, it may be stated that the complainant is minor and he has filed the complaint through his natural guardian grandfather Laxmi Narayan. The complainants in both the complaints are sister and brother. The complainant has alleged that on 1.10.89 he and his sister Pinki complainant in Complaint Case No. 73/90 were going on the scooter with t