The central legal point established in the judgment is the allocation of liability between the distributor and the principal company in cases of consumer harm caused by defective products.

ORDER

1. All the above appeals have been filed against the order dated 28.12.2006 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal in case No. 08/06.

2. It is not disputed that Babulal Lodhi/complainant was one of the consumers of the LPG and the gas cylinder was being supplied to him by M/s. Phoenix Distributors Pvt. Ltd.- opposite party No. 2. It has also not been disputed before us that when the cylinder was received by the complainant and after fixing the regulator, when the matchstick was lighted, there was sudden explosion. In the accident not only the appellant but his wife, who was pregnant at that time, and child all sustained burn injuries. Complaint was made to the Distributor-opposite party No. 2, who obtained the gas cylinder and replaced it free of charge.

3. The case of the complainant/Babulal Lodhi, in short, is that he being a customer of opposite party No. 2/Distributor did not realise that there was defect in the cylinder, inasmuch as, the rubber washer was missing. The complainant and his family members have sustained burn injuries and damage having been caused to his house, he was required to be compensated by the opposite parties. On evaluation of the evidence adduced, it was directed by the District Forum that the opposite party No. l- Hindustan Petroleum and opposite party No. 2-Phoenix Distributor, jointly and severally would be liable to pay to the complainant- Babulal Lodhi Rs. l lac, as compensation. In addition to this Rs. 2,000 has been awarded as cost. It was also directed that if the amount was not paid within one month, 6% interest would be payable on the awarded amount.

4. The short question that arises for our consideration is that as to whether the incident occurred on account of wrong fixing of the regulator on the cylinder or on account of a defective cylinder having been supplied to the complainant/subscriber.

5. Learned Counsel for the complainant/Babulal Lodhi has pointed out that insofar as the defect is concerned, the fact that a cylinder free of cost was supplied in place of the cylinder which had burst and report was given that there was a defective washer in the cylinder conclude that the cylinder was defective and it was not on account of any act of inmates of the house that the accident occurred.

6 . Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2/Distributor submits that Hindustan Petroleum was also a party, the burden should have been saddled collectively and severally on both the respondents and the District Forum committed error in saddling only the Distributor with the liability. It seems that the learned Counsel has not properly appreciated the direction issued by the Forum. The order directs both the Distributor and the Hindustan Petroleum to pay the amount of Rs. 1 lac to the complainant.

7 . Having found that the complainant-Babulal Lodhi is entitled to the compensation, as awarded by the Forum below, submission has been made persuade us to hold that the opposite party No. l-Hindustan Petroleum is collectively and severally liable for payment of compensation. In this connection learned Counsel for Hindustan Petroleum has relied on the decision of the National Commission in the case of Flame Gas Service, Bikaner and Ors. v. Aklesh Kumar Bansal and Ors., (1995) 1 CPJ 78 (NC), to the effect that the Corporation cannot be made liable for the negligence of the Distributor, as the Distributor cannot be said to be agent for Corporation. In another decision reported in JT 1993 (6) SC 645, Indian Oil Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council, Kerala And Anr. the Supreme Court has also indicated the parameters which fasten the liability on the principal. The case before the Supreme Court related to an unauthorised user and it was observed that Clause 17 of the L.P.G. Distributorship Agreement clearly states that the Distributor shall act as Principal and not as Agent. In this view of the matter we cannot hold the Hindustan Petroleum vicariously liable for the payment of the amount. Le