Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member

          None present for the Appellant/original Opponent No.1.  Respondent No.1/original Complainant and the Respondent No.2/original Opponent No.2 are also absent.  Heard Adv. Milind Mahajan, who is present on behalf of the Respondent No.3/original Opponent No.3, namely – New India Assurance Company Ltd.  Perused the record.

[2]     This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 4/9/2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nasik (‘the Forum’ in short) in Consumer Complaint No.23 of 2001, Mr. Gawande Chandrakant Baliram Vs.  Proprietor, Shri Ambika Gas Agency and others.  It is the case of the Respondent No1/original Complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Complainant’ for the sake of brevity) that on 6/9/2000 he had purchased a filled LPG cylinder from the gas agency, namely - the Appellant/original Opponent No.1.  He himself attached said gas cylinder to the gas stove.  However, there was a leakage and as a result of which there was a fire sustaining damage to the household articles and he also sustained burn injuries.  Consumer complaint was filed holding the manufacturer and the dealer of the gas filled cylinder guilty of deficiency in service.  The Forum upheld the case only against the Appellant/original Opponent No.1, gas dealer, and directed him to pay to the Complainant an amount of `75,000/- by way of compensation besides costs of `500/-.  Feeling aggrieved thereby the dealer viz. the Appellant/original Opponent No.1 preferred this appeal.

[3]     In the instant case, it is alleged by the Complainant himself that he himself attached the LPG cylinder to the gas stove.  How the fire broke out is not established.  It is not established that there was any negligence on the part of the Appellant/original Opponent No.1, as the gas dealer, while supplying the LPG cylinder to the Complainant.  It is also not established that the LPG cylinder was defective.  Under the circumstances, without paying attention to these vital aspects, the Forum preferred to proceed further to grant compensation to the Complainant from the gas dealer.  Hence, the impugned order cannot be supported with.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-

ORDER

Appeal is allowed.

Impugned order dated 4/9/2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nasik in Consumer Complaint No.23 of 2001 is hereby set aside.  Consequently, the consumer complaint stands dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Pronounced and dictated on 13^th October, 2011