The main legal point established in the judgment is the joint and several liability of the gas company and the dealer for a gas cylinder accident, based on the dealership agreement and the regulations under the Essential Commodities Act and the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order.

Mr. Justice S.N. Kapoor, Presiding Member—FA Nos. 444/03 and 130/04 arise out of an order in Complaint No. 112/96 dated 7.8.2002. By this order the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowed the complaint and directed O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 to pay compensation to the complainant’s husband and son of the deceased a sum of Rs. 2,85,000 and directed O.P. No. 3 to deposit Rs. 15,000 payable to the complainant, in terms of the order.

2. The brief facts giving an occasion to this complaint and the appeals are as under :

Smt. M. Indiramma wife of complainant No. 1 and mother of second complainant was a subscriber/consumer of LPG supplied by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., M/s. Shreya Enterprises are authorized agent/dealer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., issued an Insurance Policy to M/s. Shreya Enterprises.

3. On 28.10.1995 Mrs. Indiramma complained to the dealer that the L.P. Gas Cylinder installed at her residence by the dealer was suspected to defective and sought its rectification. The dealer M/s. Shreya Enterprises sent its ‘authorized mechanic’ Raju to the residence of Indiramma. The mechanic after attending to the repairs directed Indiramma to lit the gas. The moment she lighted the gas, she was engulfed with flames causing severe burns besides blasting and uprooting the doors and other fixtures in the house. The mechanic Raju was also injured. She was immediately rushed to the hospital, where she succumbed to the burn injuries on 3.11.1995 just five days thereafter. Doctors at Gandhi Hospital conducted post-mortem and issued a certificate to the effect that death was due to the burn injuries. A criminal complaint was registered with Kushaiguda Police.

4. It was claimed by the complainant that deceased Indiramma aged 27 years was a practising advocate having flourishing practice. She was getting monthly retainer’s fee of Rs. 3,000 from Dua Ad Creations Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad besides other income. The husband lost of consortium of his wife due to the negligent act of the mechanic of dealer. The complainant and his son lost love and affection. The complainant claimed compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs with interest @ 18% and Rs. 15,000 towards expenses etc.

5. The State Commission in absence of written version of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 proceeded Ex parte.

6. However, Insurance Company, the New India Assurance Company Limited filed the written version claiming that there was no cause of action against the Insurance Company for the complainants. However, they submitted that without admitting the claim, the complainant might be at best fall within the scope of Section 10 of the policy and there could be a liability to the extent of Rs. 15,000 only.

7. The case was decided ex parte by the State Commission holding that the deceased died due to burn injuries suffered by her in the accident on 28.9.1995 due to leakage of the Gas from the cylinder at her residence and this was due to the negligence on the part of the mechanic of the dealer. Taking into consideration that the deceased was getting Rs. 3,000 per month as retainers fee besides earning Rs. 5,000 in her practice, the State Commission awarded a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 accepted the plea of the Insurance Company holding it liable to the extent of Rs. 15,000 only and accordingly directed M/s. Shreya Enterprises and M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., to pay a sum of Rs. 2,85,000 with cost of Rs. 5,000.

8. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., filed an application for setting aside ex parte order against it but that application was rejected taking it to be a review application.

9. From the side of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, the learned Counsel has contended that in terms of agreement with the dealer M/s. Shreya Enterprises the responsibility would be that of Shreya Enterprises and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., could not be held liable for rendering allegedly deficient service. He referred to various paras of