PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 27.01.2011 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 350 of 2009 M/s. Aag India (P) Ltd. Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that quotations submitted by OP/petitioner for servicing the fire fighting equipment installed in the Digital Tax Exchange of complainant/petitioner was accepted for a period of 3 months from 1.10.2001 to 31.12.2001. On 22.11.2001, the employees of the OP while doing maintenance works mistakenly activated two fire fighting globes containing halom gas and gas leaked which caused loss of 3,20,250/-. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that there was no valid concluded contract between the parties and OP did not carry out maintenance work, but submitted that on 22.11.2001 employees of OP went to complainant exchange in furtherance of a telephone call to manage leakage of gas and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.2,66,550/-, cost of halom gas and labour charge with 6% p.a. interest. Appeal filed by the OP was dismissed by learned State Commission against which, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of no proof of AMC contract and no proof of filling of halom gas, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention towards terms & conditions of AMC letter dated 3.7.2001 given by petitioner to respondent and has submitted that offer was valid only for a period of 20 days and as it was not accepted, there was no AMC contract between the parties. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention towards letter dated 13.9.2001 written by petitioner admitting AMC contract. In the light of admission vide letter dated 4.12.2002, it is well proved that petitioner was granted AMC contract by respondent in the light of tender for a period of 3 months from 1.10.2001 to 31.12.2001. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that acceptance letter dated 13.9.2001 was never received by the petitioner. This argument is devoid of force because in paragraph 4 of the reply filed before District Forum, OP admitted receipt of letter dated 13.9.2001. 6. As far leakage of gas is concerned, petitioner admitted in its reply before District Forum that OP personnel reached on the spot on call from the complainant regarding leakage of gas. Had there been no AMC Contract, OP personnel would not have attended the call and in such circumstances, it can very well be inferred that AMC contract between the parties was in force and during validity period of AMC contract, gas leakage was due to negligence of OP personnel. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that respondent has not submitted any bill for refilling halom gas. No doubt, no bill has been furnished, but learned District Forum has dealt this aspect at length and has awarded cost of gas @ Rs.1950/- per Kg. instead of Rs.2250/- per Kg. When gas leaked from the fire fighting equipment, it cannot be presumed that gas was not filled in fire fighting system. Learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint. 8. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.