The petitioner had taken a LPG connection of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited from Deep Ganga Gas Agency, Gogari, Jamalpur.  He purchased a cylinder filled with LPG from the LPG Dealer M/s. Deep Ganga Gas Agency on 19.4.2005.  A fire broke out in the kitchen, when the mother of the complainant was cooking food.  Alleging that the fire had broken out on account of leakage due to regulator of the gas cylinder being defective, the petitioner approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. 

2.      The complaint was resisted by the respondents who denied any defect in the equipment supplied to the complainant.

3.      The complaint having been allowed by the District Forum, the respondents approached the concerned State Commission by way of two separate appeals.  The said appeals having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

4.      It was noted by the State Commission that the complainant had not produced the damaged cylinder and the burnt pipe. What is more important is that since the case of the petitioner is that the regulator of the LPG cylinder was defective, he ought to have produced technical evidence to prove the alleged defect in the regulator.  Admittedly, no technical evidence was produced by the petitioner to prove that the regulator of the LPG cylinder was defective.  As noted earlier, the cylinder was supplied to the petitioner on 19.4.2005, whereas the fire took place on 04.5.2005.  This would show that the regulator was not defective.  Had the regulator been defective, the fire would have broken out immediately after the petitioner had started using LPG from the cylinder purchased by him.

5.      It was also noted by the State Commission that as per the police report as well as the report of the Fire Department, the evidence available to them, showed that the fire had taken place due to pipe leakage.  The aforesaid reports also falsify the case of the petitioner that the LPG had leaked on account of the regulator of the cylinder being defective.  Therefore, the order of the State Commission, dismissing the complaint does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.  The revision petition is therefore dismissed.