Anupam Dasgupta, Member:- This appeal assails the order dated 08.04.2003 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commis­sion, Bangalore (hereafter, 'the State Commission') in Complaint Cases no. 53 and 54 of 1995, dismissing the complaints filed by the appellant and his daughter. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred hereafter according to their status before the State Commission. 2. (i) The case of the complainants (D. Shankar and his daughter, Sangeetha in two separate complaints) before the State Commission was that the opposite parties (OPs) 1 and 3 - (respondents no 1 and 3 before us) were guilty of deficiency in service inasmuch as they supplied de­fective cooking gas (LPG) equipme; in­cluding gas cylinder and regulator because of which there was leakage of the gas and a fire in the house of the complainants/appellants on 21.06.1993 wl.ich caused severe burn injuries to Indumathi, the wick of the appellant as well as Sangeetha. Even after treatment at the Victoria Hos­pital, Bangalore and thereafter at the Christian Medical College (CMC), Vellore, Indumathi expired. Indumathi was also subjected to post mortem examination after she died. Sangeetha, in turn, had to undergo prolonged treatment as an in-pa­tient at the Victoria Hospital for 2 months and thereafter as an outpatient for 9 months because she sustained 14% burn injuries, affecting her face, right hand, shoulder, waist, thighs and legs. The ap­pellant registered a complaint with the local Police Station immediately after the fire accident which was registered by the Police. The Police visited the house and prepared a Panchnama about the incident and also seized the gas cylinder and regu­lator. After obtaining orders of the com­petent criminal court, OP 1, however, ob­tained possession of the said gas cylinder and regulator from the Police and supplied new cylinder, regulator and rubber tubing to the complainant which they were us­ing since then. In the meanwhile, the com­plainant wrote several times to OPs 1 and 3 to pay compensation for the injuries suffered by his family but there was no re­sponse, even after personal visits and is­suing a legal notice. This led to D. Shankar and Sangeetha filing separate complaints, claiming compensation, etc., amounting to Rs. 8.44 lakh from all the OPs. (ii) Before the State Commission, all the OPs vehemently contested the allega­tions in the complaints. This led to D. Shankar and Sangeetha filing separate complaints, claiming compensation, etc., amounting to Rs. 8.44 lakh from all the OPs. (ii) Before the State Commission, all the OPs vehemently contested the allega­tions in the complaints. (a) The main contention of OP 1 was that the complainant's gas connection had been transferred to its jurisdiction from an­other Indane gas distributor in Bangalore in February 1992 and that the complain­ant had not obtained even one gas cylin­der/refill from OP 1 ever since. There was thus no question of supply of any defec­tive goods or deficiency in service on its part. Moreover, in a letter issued to OP 1 on 21.02.1994, D. Shankar had stated that OP 1 was not responsible for the accident that occurred on 21.06.1993 at his house. Hence the complaints were not based on facts and had been filed merely to tarnish the reputation of OP 1 who was a conscientious distributor of OP 3. (b) OP 2, on the other hand, accepted that OP 1 was a holder of an insurance policy to indemnify the loss/injury caused, inter alia, to bona fide customers of OP 1. However, according to OP 2, there was no privity of contract between the complainant(s) and OP 2 and hence the complaint(s) was/were not maintainable against OP 2. Further, it was not aware if the complainant (D. Shankar) was a customer of OP 1 and, in any case, the complainant(s) had not alleged any neg­ligence on the part of OP 1 in the supply of gas cylinder and/or deficient service on the letter's part. Moreover, neither the Fire Brigade nor the Police raised any suspi­cion of irregularity/negligence on the part of OP 1. Therefore, according to the terms of the insurance policy of OP 1 with OP 2, the latter was not liable to pay anything to the complainant(s). (c) Finally, according to OP 3, though the complainant D. Shankar was a holder of an Indane cooking gas connection since 1976, assignment of his connection to OP 1 was made in February 1992 and he did not draw any cylinder/refill from OP 1 ever since. In fact, according to records, the last cylinder was drawn by the com­plainant from the previous distributor in March 1991. In fact, according to records, the last cylinder was drawn by the com­plainant from the previous distributor in March 1991. Hence, the complainant had not used an "authorised" cylinder since then and the cylinder in question (involved in the accident of June 1993) had not been supplied by any distributor of OP 3. Moreover, the complainant had commit­ted a breach of contract with the distribu­tor OP 1, because he had not obtained followed the contract conditions/precau­tions that are always incorporated on the reverse side of the subscription vouched issued by the distributor whenever a cus­tomer for a domestic LPG connection is "enrolled". Further, the contractual rela­tionship between OP 3 and any of its dis­tributors was that of "principal to princi­pal" and not of "principal and agent". Hence, deficiency in service, if any, com­mitted by a distributor, including OP 1, leading to injury to a customer attached to.t distributor did not fasten any li­ability, even vicarious, on OP 3 to pay compensation to such a customer. Lastly, the in-house investigations of OP 3 had revealed that the gas leakage occurred because the complainant was using old tubing which had developed a cut/crack. (iii) On considering the pleadings of and evidence and documents produced by the parties, the State Commission passed the order mentioned above. The main post considered by the State Commission was the complainant had not been able to establish that the gas cylinder involved in the fire and consequent bum injuries to his wife and daughter had been drawn from the distributor OP 1 ever since his connection had been attached to the said distributor. 3. We have heard Ms Reetu Sharma Kathuria, Advocate who was appointed as Amicus Curiae by this Commission to as­sist with the case of the complainant/ap­pellant and Mr. G. S. Mani and Mr. B. S. Sharma, Advocates on behalf of OP 3/respondent 3. None was, however, present on behalf of either OP I/respond­ent 1 or OP 2/respondent 2 though writ­ten submissions were filed on behalf of OP1 by Mr. M. Veerappa, Advocate who had appeared on behalf OP1 on earlier occasions. Ms Sharma Kathuria and Mr. K. Rajeev, Advocate (who had earlier appeared on behalf of OP 3) have also filed written submissions in support of their arguments. 4. M. Veerappa, Advocate who had appeared on behalf OP1 on earlier occasions. Ms Sharma Kathuria and Mr. K. Rajeev, Advocate (who had earlier appeared on behalf of OP 3) have also filed written submissions in support of their arguments. 4. Assailing the impugned order, Ms Sharma Kathuria has emphasised that the State Commission erred in relying the on non-drawal of a gas cylinder by the com­plainant from OP1 to the complete exclu­sion of all documentary evidence after the accident which were on record and proved the admission of OPs 1 and 3 that D. Shankar was a bona fide customer of these OPs. This admission as well as the individual and joint conduct OPs 1 and 3 and their correspondence after the ac­cident left no doubt about the validity of the complainant's case. In this context, Ms Sharma Kathuria has taken us through several documents on record before the State Commission and made the follow­ing submissions : (i) Letter dated 26.08.1993 written by the Senior Area Manager of OP 3 to the Sub Inspector of Police of Police Station, Chamrajpet - this letter began with, "Shri D. Shankar, our Indane customer in whose house the LPG accident took place on 21.6.1993......" and clearly showed the admission of OP 3 that the complainant was a cus­tomer of OP 3 at the time of and after the accident. (ii) Letter dated 20.09.1993 written by the Senior Area Manager of OP 3 to the court of the First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore - this let­ter also began with, "An LPG accident occurred on 21.6.1993 at our customer's premises of Shri D. Shankar.........." (iii) In reply dated 22.04.1994 to the notice sent by the complainant's Advocate, the Senior Area Man­ager of OP 3 had written, inter alia, "If at all your claimant wishes to prefer claim/damages, he should take up directly with our distributor's insurance company and appeal for reimbursement." However, about a year later, the same Senior Area Manager of OP 3 wrote a letter dated 24.03.1995 to the Divisional Manger of OP 2, in which he stated inter alia, "Our distributor Mis Gopi Agencies, Bangalore under whom Shri D. Shankar is being serviced has taken an In­surance Policy through your com­pany for third party liability...... Therefore, we shall be thankful if you can kindly assist our cus­tomer Shri D. Shankar for the claim which he has submitted to your company through our dis­tributor Mis Gopi Agencies, Bangalore." (iv) The public liability/product liabil­ity claim from, on being issued by OP 2, was filled in by OP 1 and sent to OP 2. This claim form gave full details of the accident, where, when and how it oc­curred, the nature and description of the injuries suffered by the complainant's wife and his daughter, summary accounts of expenditure, etc., exactly as re­ported by the complainant It also included a certificate, dated 30.12.1994 and signed on behalf of M/s Gopi Agencies, i.e., OP 1, to the effect, "I/we, the above-named, do hereby, to the best of our knowledge and belief, warrant the truth of the foregoing state­ments in every respect; and I/we agree that if I/we have made, or in any further declaration the Company may require in respect of the said accident, shall make any false or fraudulent statement, or any suppression or conceal­ment, my/our claim shall be ab­solutely forfeited, and the policy shall be null and uoid." (v) The LPG certificate, issued by OP 3 as early as on 03.121993 in respect of the said accident, mentioned not only the names of the complainant and the distribu­tor (OP 1) but also the complain­ant's consumer number, the LPG cylinder number and the date of its issue. Apparently, this certifi­cate was enclosed with the claim form mentioned above. (vi) In letter dated 23.05.1994 ad­dressed to OP 2, requesting issu­ance of a claim form as a sequel to the legal notice sent by the complainant, OP 1 stated, inter alia, "As you are aware, Sri D. Shankar was given a cheque for Rs. 25,000/- towards the loss of life of Smt. Indumathi (wife of Sri D. Shanfcar) out of the Mas­ter Policy taken out by the Oil Companies." (vii) By its order dated 14.10.1998, the State Commission itself al­lowed the complainant's applica­tion for amendments to the com­plaint though the application was opposed by the OPs 1 and 3. In this amendment, the complain­ant stated, inter alia that he had been given a new gas connection with a new LPG cylinder and regulator after the accident. Proof of this new connection from an­other distributor was also furnished by the complainant before the State Commission. In this amendment, the complain­ant stated, inter alia that he had been given a new gas connection with a new LPG cylinder and regulator after the accident. Proof of this new connection from an­other distributor was also furnished by the complainant before the State Commission. From this it was clear that though OP 3 had written to the complainant by its letter dated 08.07.1993 that they (OP 3 and OP 1) intended to test the gas cylinder and regu­lator involved in the accident in the presence of the complainant and the Police, such test was never carried out to establish that both the cylinder and the regula­tor were in good condition, as earlier claimed by OP 3 and in­stead, a new connection was given. Thus, there was also no independent proof of the claim of OP 3 that though the cylinder and the regulator were in good order, the accident had occurred due to gas leakage from the rub­ber tube. Ms Sharma Kathuria has thus argued that while OPs 1 and 3 claimed that the complainant had never drawn any cylin­der from OP 1 after his LPG connection had been transferred to OP 1 in February 1992 and was thus not a consumer of OP 1 when the accident occurred in his house in June 1993, they admitted in various written communication that the complain­ant was a bona fide consumer of theirs. On the one hand, OP 3 stated in its let­ter dated April 1994 that the complain­ant ought to approach the insurance com­pany through the distributor OP 1 for seek­ing compensation and OP 3 had no di­rect connection with this matter; on the other, OP 3 issued an LPG certificate giv­ing details identical with those stated by the complainant, including his consumer number, number of the cylinder its date of issue, etc., and pursued - by a letter written as late as in December 1995 - the claim filed by OP 1 with OP 2 in support of the complainant's claim, admitting clearly in that letter that the complainant was and continued to be a consumer of theirs. OP 3 also paid Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant towards his wife's death due burns from the said accident, against its own Master Insurance Policy. OP 3 also paid Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant towards his wife's death due burns from the said accident, against its own Master Insurance Policy. OP 1, in turn, filled in and submitted the insurance claim form to OP 2, stating that the com­plainant was a customer attached to it and vouchsafing everything that the com­plainant had reported/conveyed to them from time to time regarding the details of the accident, including the itemised sum­mary of the expenditure incurred by the complainant after the accident on treat­ment, etc. Not having arranged an inspec­tion of the cylinder and regulator involved in the accident in the presence of the complainant and the Police despite a let­ter to that effect and later giving a new LPG connection with new equipment, OP 3 could not claim that the accident was due to some defect in the rubber tubing in use by the complainant. The State Commission itself allowed the amendment to the complaint alleging defects in the gas cylinder and regulator supplied earlier and also that new connection with new equip­ment had been given by OP 3. 5. On behalf of OP 1, what has been urged in the written submissions is mainly a reiteration of its stand before the State Commission that the complainant never drew any gas cylinder from OP 1. He did not get in touch with OP 1 any time af­ter his connection was transferred to the territorial service area of OP 1. Attempts by OP 1 to contact the complainant at the given address from the previous dis­tributor's reference also did not succeed. Thus, the complainant was not a con­sumer of any service of OP 1 and hence there was no question of any deficiency 'in service on the part of OP 1 that could be linked to the accident causing death of the complainant's wife from burns and injuries to his daughter. It is also submit­ted that the accident was caused because of use of old rubber tubing and the pay­ment of Rs. 25,000A by OP 3 to OP 1 was purely on grounds of compassion. 6. The oral and written submissions of learned counsel for OP 3 are also on the same lines as the defence of OP 3 before the State Commission to which we have referred in detail in paragraph 2(ii) (c) above and need not repeat. 7. 25,000A by OP 3 to OP 1 was purely on grounds of compassion. 6. The oral and written submissions of learned counsel for OP 3 are also on the same lines as the defence of OP 3 before the State Commission to which we have referred in detail in paragraph 2(ii) (c) above and need not repeat. 7. It is true that the complainant did not produce any document before the State Commission that he had drawn a gas cylinder from OP 1 after his LPG connection was transferred to OP 1 from another Indane distributor in Bangalore. However, the conduct of both OP 1 and OP 3 and the letters written by them af­ter the accident of June 1993 show with­out doubt that they admitted the com­plainant's status of his being a consumer of OP 1 as well as all material details related to the accident of June 1993. The LPG certificate issued by OP 3 in Decem­ber 1993 showed the complainant as a consumer of OP 1, giving details of his consumer number, cylinder number and the date of issue of the cylinder. Thus, whatever was urged before the State Com­mission (and before us now) about the date of issue of the last LPG cylinder to the complainant was known both to OP 1 and OP 3 as long back as in December 1993. Yet, a year after the issuance of the LPG certificate, OP 1 filled in the insur­ance claim form which unambiguously reflected the status of the complainant as a consumer of OP 1 and vouchsafed every material detail that the complainant stated about the accident, including the summary of his expenses on treatment, etc., of his wife and daughter. Apparently, the same LPG certificate was also enclosed with the claim application. This action is nowhere explained by OP 1, except by way of a bland sentence in the written submissions that the claim form was processed by it because the complainant "was on the roll of the distributor respondent." Similarly, it cannot be overlooked that OP 3, by its letters written to the Police and the Addi­tional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's court in August-September 1993 and that to OP 2 as late as on 24.03.1995, admit­ted to the complainant being a consumer serviced by OP 1 and urged OP 2 to proc­ess the claim as early as possible. Sec­ondly, though OP 3 claimed in its letter dated 08.07.1993 to the complainant that it intended to test the pressure regulator and the rubber tube (seized by the Police and then returned to OP 3) in the pres­ence of the complainant and the Police to finalise its report, there is no evidence that such a test was actually carried out in the presence of the complainant and the Police. This has to be viewed against the averment of the complainant that this test was never conducted in his presence. Further, in its letter of 20.09.1993 to the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's court, OP 3 stated that its investigations revealed that the accident had occurred due to rubber tube fault which had not been changed for a long time by the cus­tomer. In the same letter, OP 3 requested the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magis­trate's court to release the cylinder because it was reportedly in "sound working con­dition" and it was intended to resume the supplies to the complainant. The basis on which OP 3 claimed that the cylinder was in "sound working condition" when it was lying in the Police Station since the acci­dent of June 1993 (and, according to the OPs, had been issued to the complainant sometime in February 1991) is absolutely unclear. On the other hand, the complain­ant produced proof before the State Com­mission that instead of resuming supplies with the old cylinder, OP 3 had made available to him a new connection with new equipment in April 1995 through a different distributor. Even in its reply of March 1994 to the notice from the com­plainant's Advocate, OP 3 did not state that the complainant was not a consumer of OP 1, not haying drawn any LPG cyl­inder from the latter or that its in-house investigations showed that the fire was due leakage of gas from the damaged old rub­ber tubing, to change which in good time was the responsibility of the complainant. In fact, as a result of this notice, OP 1 wrote to OP 2 by its letter of 23.05.1994 asking inter alia for issuance of the claim form. 8. These letters/admissions/actions of OPs 1 and 3 since soon after the accident to March 1995 lend strong credence to the substance of the complainant's conten­tions. In fact, as a result of this notice, OP 1 wrote to OP 2 by its letter of 23.05.1994 asking inter alia for issuance of the claim form. 8. These letters/admissions/actions of OPs 1 and 3 since soon after the accident to March 1995 lend strong credence to the substance of the complainant's conten­tions. We may recall that adjudication of consumer complaints in summary pro­ceedings is based on preponderance of probabilities and not on application of the rigorous provisions of the Evidence Act enjoining proof beyond doubt. In our opinion, the State Commission erred in not duly considering the collective weight of these documents/admissions and con­duct of OPs 1 and 3 and coming to the conclusions that it did. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, we partly allow the appeal of the com­plainant/appellant and set aside the im­pugned order of the State Commission -consequently, the complaint is also deemed to have been allowed partly. As regards the quantum of compensation, we think that a consolidated sum of Rs. 5 lakh on all counts would meet the ends of justice in this case. Accordingly, we direct respondents 1 and 3, viz., M/s Gopi Agencies and Indian Oil Corporation Lim­ited to pay the sum of Rs. 5 lakh to the appellant within four weeks from the date of this order, with the clarification that the two respondents will be liable for this payment jointly and severally. Failure to pay this sum within the stipulated period would make the respondents also liable to pay interest on the amount @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of this order till payment. 10. Before parting with the matter, we would like to place on record our ap­preciation of the valuable assistance ren­dered in this case by Ms Reetu Sharma Kathuria, Advocate as Amicus Curiae. The Registry is directed to disburse a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to her, including any sum disbursed earlier, by way of out-of-pocket expenses.