Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Petitioner is the dealer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation.  Respondent/complainant purchased domestic gas connection from the petitioner and kept the gas cylinder and the burner in her room.  Her son tried to burn the candle and put match over it.  All of a sudden, the cylinder caught fire and the roof and the house of the complainant got damaged.  Son and husband of the complainant received injuries and were admitted in the hospital, where they succumbed to their injuries.  Complainant, thereafter, filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

          District Forum, after taking into consideration the pleading and evidence, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation for the damaged house; Rs.35,000/- by way of compensation for the loss of household items; Rs.50,000/- for loss of love and affection of husband and son; Rs.50,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.1,20,000/- for loss of expectation of life.  Total compensation of Rs.3,05,000/- was allowed along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.

          Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission has recorded a finding that the gas cylinder supplied to the respondent was defective.  This finding has been recorded on the basis of Panchnama prepared by the Sub-inspector of the Police. Another submission made before the State Commission was that the complainant was not the wife of the deceased alleged husband.  The State Commission has rejected this submission based on the evidence of the complainant and the affidavits of Shri Chandrapal - neighbour of the complainant, sister-in-law (nanad) and U.P. Pradhan, wherein they have clearly stated that the complainant was the wife of the deceased. 

          Counsel for the petitioner contends that the complainant was not the wife of the deceased alleged husband.  We cannot accept this submission for the simple reason that the finding recorded by the State Commission is a finding of fact, which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.  Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the National Commission, in revision, can interfere with the orders only if it appears that the Authority below has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.  Finding recorded by the State Commission that the cylinder supplied was defective is also based on evidence and is a finding of fact. 

Counsel for the petitioner then contended that the complainant had remarried, which has been refuted by the complainant, who is present in person.  Lastly, it was contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the compensation awarded by the State Commission was on a higher side despite the fact that the State Commission has reduced the compensation from Rs.3.05 lakh to Rs.2 lakh.  State Commission has given detailed reasons for giving the compensation of Rs.2 lakh and has apportioned the compensation for the loss of the consortium, damage to the house as well as household items.  Two members of the respondent’s family died at the spot.  Under the circumstances, the overall compensation awarded to the respondent in the sum of Rs.2 lakh by the State Commission for the loss of two lives, damage to the house and the household items, cannot be said to be excessive or on the higher side.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not find any merit in this Revision Petition.  We dismiss the same leaving the parties to bear their own costs.