JUDGMENT : Asper S.K. Kulshrcstha , J. (President ): - Heard. Thisappeal assails the order dated 12-12-2007 passed in C.C. No. 52/2006 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Betul wherebythe complaint of the appellants has been dismissed. 2.The appellant is a consumer of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) supplied by thedealer Gurudev Gas Agency (respondent No. 1). It waspointed out that respondent No. 2 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited beinga principal of respondent No. 1, both were vicariously liable for-payment ofcompensation to the appellant. 3.The appellant contended that on account of burns she has become ugly and hasalso become physically handicapped. Thus, for deficiency in service shedemanded Rs . 1,50,000/- as treatment expenses, Rs . 2,00,000/- for becoming ugly and physically handicappedand Rs . 50,000/- for deficiency in service total Rs . 4,00,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. 4.The short question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant isentitled to receive compensation from respondent No. 2 as well as respondentNo. 1, the manufacturer and the dealer. 5.In K.G. Sathyanarayan Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others, III (2006) CPJ 8 (NC), the NationalCommission has ruled that authorised distributoracting only under authority of the company and not independently thus thecompany could not avoid its liability as principal notwithstanding agreementbetween the two. Thus, it is clear that the respondent No. 2 is also liable forthe act of respondent No. 1. The appellant has proved that on account of gas leakage there was fire in which she got 30% burns. Thisleakage is directly attributable to the negligence of the respondents becausedespite having shortened the gap pipe, leakage continue and eventually burns were caused. 6.The appellant has demanded Rs . 1 ,50,000 /-for treatment expenses, Rs . 2,00,000/- for becomingugly and physically handicapped and Rs . 50,000/- fordeficiency in service with 12% interest. The appellant has got 30% burns whichshows that claim with regard to treatment expenses is substantial. Under these circumstances, she is required to be compensated. Shehas received 30% burns and of course plastic surgery may have to be resortedto. The appellant has sought Rs . 2 ,00,000 /-for loss of looks and ugly and physically handicapped and Rs .50,000/- for deficiency in service but nothing to show that she becamephysically handicapped. However, Rs . 1 ,50,000 /- covered substantial part of the compensation thatshe has claimed. Apart from this she is not entitled to any other claim. The appellant has sought Rs . 2 ,00,000 /-for loss of looks and ugly and physically handicapped and Rs .50,000/- for deficiency in service but nothing to show that she becamephysically handicapped. However, Rs . 1 ,50,000 /- covered substantial part of the compensation thatshe has claimed. Apart from this she is not entitled to any other claim. 7.Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the compensation Rs . 1 ,50,000 /- is awarded to bepaid to the appellant jointly and severally by the respondents.