1. The petitioner is a dealer of Indian Oil Corporation supplying gas cylinders to consumers. According to the respondent no. 1 complainant, a gas cylinder supplied by the dealer, and manufactured by the respondent no. 2, Indian Oil Corporation, exploded causing the death of the husband of the complainant, who died due to burn injuries.

2. The complainant alleged that the gas connection was in the name of one Mr. J. S. Sandhu, who handed over the gas stove and cylinder to the respondent no. 1 complainant and she in turn applied for getting it transferred in her name for which documents were tendered before the dealer namely M/s. Qutab Gas Service, the petitioner herein. The gas leaked on 18.05.2003 that led to the incident and the husband of the complainant succumbed to injuries sustained on 23.05.2003. An FIR was lodged and an inquest was conducted which confirmed the death due to burn injuries in an accidental fire leading to the explosion of the cylinder due to leakage of gas.

3. It was also urged that in August, 2003, the gas connection was transferred in the name of the complainant. With these allegations, the complaint was filed and according to the order of the District Commission, the petitioner dealer had admitted about the request of transfer, but a plea was taken that it appears that the complainant had allegedly stolen the documents of Mr. J.S. Sandhu. The Indian Oil Corporation, who were the OP-1 before the District Commission denied any liability or indemnification as they urged that the relationship of Indian Oil Corporation with the dealer was on principal to principal basis and therefore they were not liable for any loss or liability.

4. The dealer had also taken a stand that the cylinder that was obtained by the complainant was in her own private capacity and she was an unregistered consumer. Taking this plea, the Indian Oil Corporation also supported the said contention to urge that an unregistered consumer was utilising a cylinder that had been unauthorizedly obtained and if it was a transaction in black market, there cannot be any liability fixed on that ground.

5. The District Commission therefore absolved the Indian Oil Corporation of any liability and shifted the entire liability on the petitioner dealer after computing the same on the strength of material on record.

6. The petitioner went up in appeal being F.A. No. 160/2013 and the same was dismissed on 31.01.2022.

7. The present revision petition was filed on 04.08.2022 and notices were issued whereafter all the respondents are represented including the counsel for the Insurance Company who came to be impleaded as respondent no. 3. We have heard Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, Ms. Mala Narayan for the respondent no. 2, Indian Oil Corporation and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, respondent no.

                          3. We have also perused the written arguments on behalf of the petitioner as well as the decisions relied on therein.

8. This is a revision petition where the scope of an inquiry is limited keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2011) 11 SCC 269 and followed in the recent decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 77 and Rajiv Shukla vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. and Ors. (2022) 9 SCC 31.

9. Both the fora below have categorically recorded findings of facts taking a view that the processing of the papers of the transfer of gas cylinder culminated in a transfer voucher in the name of the complainant from Mr. J.S. Sandhu. This finding of fact has been confirmed by the State Commission. Even assuming that the transfer documents came later on, the fact remains that the petitioner continued to supply the gas cylinder to the respondent complainant who had already applied for the transfer and the accident did occur resulting in the death of the husband of the complainant. These factual findings could not be dislodged by any material on record.

10. Apart from this, the negotiations about the transfer voucher also leads to the conclusion that the complainant was a consumer of a gas cylinder that was manufactured by the Indian Oil Corporation. It is not the case of either of the contesting parties that the gas cylinder was not a manufactured product of the IOC of which the petitioner was a dealer.

11. The petitioner has taken another plea that the cause of fire was a short circuit that led to the fire and it was not an LPG leakage for which reliance was sought to be paced on certain entries in police diaries. The explanation sought to be given in the grounds taken is of no relevance as it is not substantiated by any proof. In the given circumstances, we do not find any such perversity or material illegality on this score.

12. We may however point out that so far as an insurance claim for losses by the petitioner is concerned, the same is a matter between the petitioner and the Insurance Company that may be governed by the terms of insurance and does not impact the present proceedings. In the circumstances, the question of any claim of the petitioner against the Insurance Company is left open to be dealt with independently, inasmuch as, we do not find any observations made by the District Commission in respect of any such liability nor do we find any such discussion relating to the interse claim of the petitioner from the Insurance Company. It is open to the Insurance Company to take any appropriate decision in the matter and the passing of the orders of the fora below will not prejudice any such claim of the petitioner.

13. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.