Judgment B.B. Vagyani, President.—This appeal filed by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and another is directed against the order dated 17.12.2004 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Kolhapur in Complaint No. 640/2000. 2. Respondent No. 1/org. complainant had accepted the delivery of gas cylinder from Suraj Gas Agency. Gas cylinder was delivered to the complainant on 10.04.2000. There was a fire on 22.04.2000 on account of alleged leakage of gas cylinder. Consumer attributed gross manufacturing defect in the gas cylinder. Because of fire, heavy loss was caused to the consumer. Consumer, therefore, filed consumer complaint against Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., its Manager, Suraj Gas Agency and Branch Manager of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 3. Forum below allowed the complaint and directed all the O.Ps to pay Rs. 75,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. has taken exception to the impugned order. 4. Learned Advocate Smt. S.V. Sonawane has highlighted the issue of privity of contract with a special reference to the Clause No. 17 of the Agreement with regard to distributionship. Clause No.17 reads as under:— “In all contracts or engagements entered into by the Distributor with the customers for sale of LPG and/or the sale and/or installation and/or repairs of appliances and/or connections thereof with LPG Cylinders (filled or empty) and/or refills and/or pressure regulators and/or attached equipment the Distributor shall act and shall always be deemed to have acted as a principal and not as an agent or on account of the Corporation, and the Corporation shall not in any way be liable in any manner in respect of such contracts and/or engagements and/or in respect of any act or omission on the part of the Distributor, his servants, agents and workmen is regard to such installation, sale, distribution, connections, repairs or otherwise. The Distributor shall be bound to inform the customers in writing of this provision, through correspondence or at the time of enrolment of the customer.” 5. Ld. Advocate Smt. Sonawane submits that the Suraj Gas Agency. Distributor is not the authorized agent of the Company. Relationship between them is that of principal to principal. On the other hand, Ld. Advocate Mr. R.N. Mahind has strongly supported the impugned order. 6. Ld. Advocate Smt. Sonawane submits that the Suraj Gas Agency. Distributor is not the authorized agent of the Company. Relationship between them is that of principal to principal. On the other hand, Ld. Advocate Mr. R.N. Mahind has strongly supported the impugned order. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7730/1993 reported in Judgment today 1003 (6) SC 645 wherein the apex Court by referring to the terms and conditions of the distributionship agreement has exonerate HPCL whose position is at par with the present appellants herein. 7. This Commission has also taken similar view in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Smt. Rupawati Bhikaji Dhakad, Appeal No. 368 of 2002, Decided on 06.08.2002. 8. The relationship between manufacturer and Gas Agency by virtue of terms and conditions of distrbutionship agreement was on principal to Principal basis and this being the position, the order of the District Consumer Forum imposing liability on the Manufacturing Company suffers from illegality and can not be sustained in law. Hence the following order:— Order 1. Appeal is allowed and order of the District Consumer Forum as far as holding the present appellants i.e. original O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 accountable as per clause Nos. 1 & 2 stands set aside. 2. Rest of the order stands confirmed. 3. No order as to costs. 4. Copies of order to be furnished to the parties.