Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/17/2022

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aryan Jajma - Opp.Party(s)

Ashish Kapoor Adv.

20 Mar 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	17 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	10.02.2022
Date of Decision	:	20.03.2023

 

1]      M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Plot No.3A, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh – Executive Director.

2]      M/s Indian Oil Petrol Pump, Sector 33-B, Chandigarh – Service provider Sh. Rajinder Kumar.

          Above appellants through Sh. Mukesh Gupta s/o Sh. D. C. Gupta constituted attorney and working as Sr. Manager (Retail Sales), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh Divisional Office: SCO 35-36, Sector 7C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

…..Appellants/Opposite Parties.

VERSUS

Sh. Aryan Jajma s/o Sh. S. P. Yadav, resident of H.No.237, Preet Nagar, Zirakpur, District Mohali.  

(Resident of H.No.334, Sector-21, Panchkula, Haryana as mentioned in FA/23/2022 filed by the complainant].              

…..Respondent/Complainant.

PRESENT:

Sh. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for the appellants.

Sh. S. P. Yadav, Advocate for the respondent.

 

Appeal No.	:	23 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	02.03.2022
Date of Decision	:	20.03.2023

 

Sh. Aryan Jajma son of Shri S. P. Yadav, resident of H.No.334, Sector-21, Panchkula, Haryana.

…..Appellant/Complainant.

VERSUS

1]      Indian Oil Corporation Limited through Executive Director of India Oil Corporation Limited, Plot No.3A, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh.

          ADDRESS:

          Executive Director, Plot No.3-A, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh – 160019.

         

HEAD OFFICE NEW DELHI:

          Sh. Sanjiv Singh, Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Corporate Office: 3079/3, Josip Broz Tito Marg, Sector 3, Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi, Delhi 110049.

2]      Indian Oil Petrol Pump, Sector 33-B, Chandigarh through service provider Rajinder Kumar of Indian Oil Petrol Pump, Sector 33, Chandigarh.

          ADDRESS:

          Rajinder Kumar, Service Provider, COCO Indian Oil Petrol Pump, Sector 33-B, U.T., Chandigarh.

…..Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

                                                                                                     

PRESENT:

Sh. S. P. Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for the respondents.

 

 

RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER 

                    Vide this common order, we are disposing of aforesaid two appeals i.e. FA/17/2022 filed by the opposite parties (M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited) and FA/23/2022 filed by the complainant (Aryan Jajma), arising out of order dated 21.12.2021 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short ‘District Commission’) vide which, consumer complaint No.72 of 2020 filed by the complainant was allowed directing the opposite parties to pay a lump-sum amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards excess payment of petrol, compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. The order was to be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of its receipt, failing which, the opposite parties were held liable to pay additional cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

2.                Briefly stated the facts before the Ld. District Commission were that the complainant visited Opposite Party No.2-Petrol Pump on 2.1.2020 and asked the official there to fill Diesel (tank full) in his Maruti Breeza Car bearing Regd. No.CH-01-BM-1972, whereupon the Diesel Filling Machine of Opposite Party No.3 showed that 51.47 litres of diesel got filled.  The complainant was astonished to see that 51.47 litres of diesel was filled in the car against its Tank Capacity of 48 litres, whereas the car was already having 10 litres of diesel and 100 ml engine purifier liquid substance.  The complainant asked the Opposite Party No.3 to show the record stored in the automation’ computer but it was denied.  The complainant also lodged a complaint with Opposite Party No.3 through Whatsapp, which was refused.  The case of the complainant was that how it was possible to fill more than 60 litres fuel in a fuel tank whereas maximum intake capacity of the Brezza Car is 48 litres only. It was submitted that the opposite parties also sold 100 ml substance in sealed bottle by saying that by putting it inside the fuel tank, the nozzle of the engine would be purified and cleaned and mileage would increase. Accordingly, it was done by the complainant. Being aggrieved, the complainant served a legal notice dated 5.1.2020 upon the opposite parties but of no avail. 

3.                On the other hand, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 filed joint reply, wherein, they pleaded that the concerned CA first showed the customer Zero reading before starting of fuel dispensing and then filled the car tank to its full capacity as requested by the complainant and as such, 51.47 litres of fuel was filled in the car. It was further pleaded that at that time, the complainant neither raised any complaint nor contacted the Manager who was present at the retail outlet at that time.  It was further pleaded that neither the complainant informed the concerned CA regarding the quantity of fuel already present in the car tank nor the concerned CA was aware of the quantity of fuel already therein. It was further pleaded that the fuel tank capacity mentioned by the car manufacturer is just the ‘safe filing’ and not the actual capacity of the tank and the actual capacity is at least 15-20% more than the safe filling capacity mentioned by car manufacturers. It was further pleaded that it is well known fact that a vehicle’s fuel tank can hold few extra litres. 

4.               After hearing the Counsel for the parties and going through the record, the Ld. District Commission allowed the complaint as stated above.

5.                The order of the Ld. District Commission has been assailed by the opposite parties (appellants in FA/17/2022) on the following grounds that the Ld. District Commission has not considered the fact that the fuel tank capacity mentioned by the car manufacturer is just the ‘safe filling’ and not the actual capacity of the tank and the actual capacity is at least 15-20% more than the mentioned safe filling capacity and this objection was not dealt with by the Ld. District Commission; that the vehicle’s fuel tank can hold a few extra litres and that is why, the manufacturers insist on filling only till auto cut off (safe fill limit) and not to the brim; that the fuel recommendation given by Maruti (Annexure C-2) which clearly says that the fuel tank actually has a larger capacity than what is mentioned in the user manual and that in fact the actual capacity of the tank is more than the specified capacity. Lastly, it is the case of the appellants that the Ld. District Commission passed the impugned order on guess work and presumptions and erred in holding that filling of 51.47 litres of fuel in the car in question, which has fuel tank capacity of 48 years only, amounts to deficiency in service & unfair trade practice. Prayer for setting aside of the impugned order has been made.

6.                On the other hand, the complainant in his appeal (FA/23/2022) is seeking enhancement in the compensation of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Ld. District Commission on the ground that although the Ld. District Commission has held deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties but it awarded very less compensation, which should be enhanced to Rs.25 Lakhs looking at the harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant.

7.                First, coming to the appeal filed by the opposite parties (FA/17/2022), the only issue to be determined in this appeal is, as to why the vehicle of the complainant, in question, has taken more fuel than the capacity of the fuel tank of 48 litres as mentioned by the manufacturer? 

8.                The case of the complainant before the Ld. District Commission was that his car was already having 10 litres of diesel and 100 ml engine purifier liquid substance, when Opposite Party No.2 - Petrol Pump on 02.01.2020 filled 51.47 litres of diesel against the fuel tank capacity of 48 litres. However, there was no such evidence led by the complainant on record before the Ld. District Commission to prove this fact. To bring the controversy to its logical end, this Commission on 14.09.2022 made an attempt to ascertain the actual capacity of the fuel tank of the vehicle of the complainant. However, since the vehicle was already filled with more than 30 litres of diesel on the said date, it could not be emptied and required a Mechanical Engineer at the spot to make the vehicle motorable, therefore, the appellants were directed to ensure availability of a Mechanical Engineer on the next date of hearing i.e. 29.09.2022, so that, the vehicle would be kept motorable after the vehicle is emptied. On 29.09.2022, on directions issued, the subject vehicle was taken to the CITCO Petrol Station, Sector 9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh by Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Accountant of this Commission, to check its fuel capacity (diesel) in the tank, who after doing the needful, submitted his report dated 29.09.2022 that up-to ‘Auto-cut’ mark 40.42 litres of diesel was filled in the fuel tank and after ‘Auto-cut’, 1.39 litres of diesel more was filled up-to the fullest capacity of the tank. He further stated in his report that in this way, the full capacity of the tank of the vehicle is 41.81 litres. He also submitted copy of Invoice No.17945 dated 29.09.2022 issued by the said Petrol Station showing that 41.91 litres of diesel was filled for Rs.3,522.91 in the subject vehicle.

9.                To this report, the opposite parties – Indian Oil Corporation Limited filed objections dated 04.10.2022, wherein, it was stated that on 29.09.2022, the officers of the opposite parties, COCO service provider, mechanic and Sh. M. S. Rana, Advocate were present in the Commission.  It has been further stated that when the car was taken to the petrol pump in Sector 9, Chandigarh, they were shocked to find that the Counsel for the complainant had already parked his car in front of the petrol/diesel dispensing unit of the petrol pump and no effort was being made by the said Counsel to get the diesel tank emptied. It has further been stated that the Counsel of the complainant was just telling everybody that the car is on reserve fuel and that there is no need to get the fuel tank emptied as he has already spent Rs.2,000/- to the fuel tank emptied. It has further been stated that the officers of the Corporation and the Counsel of the opposite parties told the Counsel for the complainant to move the car from the petrol/diesel dispensing unit to one side so that the diesel tank of the car could be emptied by the mechanic but he was very reluctant and told that there would be at the most 5 litres of diesel in the fuel tank. It has further been stated that the Counsel for the complainant, without getting the fuel tank emptied, started getting the vehicle filled at the dispensing unit, in total violation of order dated 14.09.2022 of this Commission. It has further been stated that the total diesel filled in the car was 41.32 litres (approx.). It has further been stated that even as per the admission of the complainant, the total capacity of fuel tank is 48 litres, so, therefore, if only 5 litres of fuel was present in the car, then before nozzle cut, at least, 43 litres of diesel should have been filled in the car. Lastly, it has been stated that there was more than 5 litres i.e. at least 9-10 litres of diesel present in the car. It has further been stated that the original car manufacturer i.e. M/s Maruti Suzuki India is the only competent authority to give opinion in the matter.

10.              After going through the report dated 29.09.2022 of Sh. Pardeep Kumar and the objection filed thereto, we are of the view that the said report cannot be said to be of any help for the simple reason that the vehicle of the complainant was not got emptied, before refueling, despite specific directions issued by this Commission to do so when the Mechanic of the opposite parties was also present at that time at the petrol station. It is not the case that said mechanic of the opposite parties at the petrol station, refused to empty the vehicle, in question. The report dated 29.09.2022 is also silent as regards getting the vehicle emptied before refueling it. Thus, it cannot be said that the full capacity of the tank of the vehicle of the complainant is 41.81 litres as stated in the report.

11.              The opposite parties in their appeal No.17 of 2022 have sought to place on record certain documents as Annexure A-1 to A-5 by moving miscellaneous application No.165 of 2022 on the ground that the said documents are of vital significant and will prove to be highly instrumental in establishing their case and will also facilitate the easy and just disposal of the appeal. The complainant neither contested the application nor filed any reply to the same. As such, the application is allowed and the aforesaid documents are taken on record. However, it may be stated here that during the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the parties also made their respective contentions with regard to these documents. 

12.              Annexure-1 is letter dated 17.01.2022 & Annexure A-2 is email dated 24.01.2022, written by the opposite parties to Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., the manufacture of the vehicle in question, which clarification was given by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vide email dated 25.01.2022, Annexure-3, which, being relevant, inter-alia, reads thus:-

“1.     Whether this is gross capacity of fuel tank and safe filing capacity of fuel tank?

        Safe filling capacity

2.      Can tank be topped up by fuel more than 48 litres as claimed by the Brochure (copy attached).

          Yes

3.      Type of fuel tank material: Rigid or flexible.

          Rigid

4.      Any vent space kept in fuel tank?

          Yes

5.      Whether 48 litres takes into account the quantity fuel of pipeline upto the nozzle cap?

        No, but during filling it seems yes due to unsettled fuel condition.

We wish to clarify that as duly mentioned in the Specification section of the Owner’s Manual & Service Booklet, the fuel tank capacity is slightly more than the recommended quantity of fuel (i.e. 48 litres as mentioned/recommended) that you can fill. The additional voluminous space is provided for safety and scientific reasons.

May please note that the capacity of the fuel tank has been declared intentionally less so that the fuel tank is not completely filled and thus, the space for air and fumes in the fuel tank is left available. This has been done in the interest of the consumers so as to avoid possibility of any mishap or untoward incident due to the complex nature of the petroleum products.

In view of the above, it is recommended that the mentioned quantity of fuel is filled in the tank at all times.”

13.              From bare perusal of the clarification given by the manufacturer to the complainant makes it abundantly clear that often the vehicles take more fuel than the capacity mentioned by the manufacturer and the capacity of the fuel tank is always declared intentionally less so that the fuel tank is not completely filled and thus, the space for air and fumes in the fuel tank is left available. We would like to add here that the fuel inside the tank expands where there is a rise in outside temperature, which can cause leaks due to internal pressure. Another reason is that there should be no leakage of fuel when the vehicle is parked in an inclined position. To avoid this, the fuel tank will be given spare room for expansion to hold the fuel inside. These are the reasons behind the actual fuel tank capacity being larger than the nominal capacity. Further, in our opinion, the vehicle takes more fuel because the vehicle has been filled with fuel more than the allowed limit. This means that fuel has been filled to the actual capacity of the fuel tank rather than its nominal capacity. While filling fuel, the hose automatically shuts off after brimming the tank to a certain level. This is called as the safe-filling limit. However, we often see customers at the gas station topping the fuel up beyond shut off point, which the complainant had done in the present case. This results in excess fuel occupying the buffer space left for fuel expansion. Further, it has been clarified that 48 litres of capacity does not take into account the quantity fuel of pipeline upto the nozzle cap, however, during filling it seems otherwise to unsettled fuel condition. Even in the clarification provided by the manufacturer, as duly mentioned in the Specification section of the Owner’s Manual & Service Booklet, the fuel tank capacity is slightly more than the recommended quantity of fuel (i.e. 48 litres as mentioned/recommended) that one can fill and the additional voluminous space is provided for safety and scientific reasons. This has been done by the manufacturer in the interest of the consumers so as to avoid possibility of any mishap or untoward incident due to the complex nature of the petroleum products. Although the manufacturer of the vehicle i.e. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. was not made a party to the complaint but vide clarification given by the manufacturer, it has become crystal clear that the vehicle can take more fuel against the safe filling capacity of 48 litres, which does not take into account the quantity fuel of pipeline upto the nozzle cap. Thus, the Ld. District Commission erred in arriving at a conclusion that there was either the malfunctioning of the fuel filling system or filling machine of the Petrol Pump, as a result whereof, the complainant was made to pay in excess. In our considered opinion, the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission is liable to be set aside and the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. In this view of the matter, the appeal filed by the complainant also deserves dismissal.

14.              For the reasons recorded above, appeal bearing No.17 of 2022 filed by the opposite parties is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. Consumer Complaint No.72 of 2020 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

15.              Resultantly, appeal bearing No.23 of 2022 filed by the complainant stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

16.              Any other miscellaneous application, if any, pending in these appeals stand dismissed having become infructuous.

17.              Copy of this order be placed in the file of appeal bearing No.23 of 2022.

18.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

19.              File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

20.03.2023.

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

        PRESIDENT

 

 

 

[RAJESH  K. ARYA]

MEMBER

Ad