The present revision petition has been filed by the complainant against the impugned order dated 19^th March, 2018 whereby the appeal of the insurance company No.286/2017 was allowed and his appeal No.980/2017 for enhancement of the compensation amount was dismissed.

    At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not pressing for the enhancement in the compensation amount granted by the District Forum. Therefore, he has not pressed the order on his appeal No.980/2017.

    It is argued that the finding of the State Commission is based on conjecture and surmises and is not based on the evidence on record. It is argued that the fire had taken place due to leakage in the cylinder but the State Commission had rested its finding on the fact that the petitioner had failed to prove the blast in the gas cylinder. It is further submitted that the burden that the petitioner had neglected in placing the nob of the gas cylinder properly, was on the respondent and the respondent had failed to lead evidence to prove it before the District Forum. The finding of the State Commission to the effect that the petitioner had neglected in placing the nob of the gas cylinder properly is nothing but conjecture and surmises and are not based on evidences led before the District Forum. It is submitted that finding of the State Commission that there was no deficiency on the part of the respondents and the fire had taken place due to the fault of the petitioner needs to be set aside. It is submitted that there is finding of the surveyor to the effect that the fire had taken place due to leakage in the gas cylinder which was supplied by respondent No.1 and manufactured by respondent No.2. It is submitted that the incident of fire was reported to the police on 23^rd May, 2014. It is also submitted that in the police report also the same fact is mentioned and the police inspected the house and gave its report to this effect. It is also argued that impugned order needs to be set aside.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent argues that the impugned order is well reasoned and needs no interference.

We have heard the arguments and perused the relevant record. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner is BPL card holder. Admittedly under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 all the gas cylinders are insured and any mishappening due to the fault in the gas cylinder or due to the negligence of the agency or the company/manufacturer the said gas cylinder is insured. In this case the said insurance liability is of the respondent No.3. It is evident from the District Forum record that the fire had taken place due to the leakage in the gas cylinder and this fact gets proved by the report of the fire brigade, the police report and also the surveyor report. In view of the above, we find that the State Commission in the impugned order has proceeded with the assumption that the fire had taken place due to bursting of the gas cylinder and on that basis it has set aside the findings of the District Forum. This is apparent that the finding of the State Commission is based on conjecture and surmises and not on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. The findings of the State Commission therefore is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The District Forum’s order is therefore confirmed.