Order dictated by:

Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       Sh.Navneet Sharma has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant purchased Ford Figo vehicle (diesel version) from Opposite Party No.1 on 10.11.2014  against retail invoice  giving complete particulars of the vehicle bearing RC No.PB-02-CL-5377 for valuable consideration which was duly paid. On 22.9.2015, the complainant purchased diesel for his said vehicle for Rs.2000/- from Opposite Party No. 2 vide receipt No. 3053 dated 22.9.2015 and then the complainant started the journey for Amritsar as he was already on the way from Attari Wagha Border towards Amritsar. Said vehicle of the complainant suddenly stopped in the way at night time at about 10.30 PM and it was not moving ahead, where no workshop or mechanic was available at that time to repair it and to start the vehicle, so he was left in the lurch as he was totally confused what to do with the vehicle either to leave it on the roadside or to take it as a safer place at that time, due to which he suffered a great mental pain, agony, harassment and inconvenience, however facing a great difficulty, he reached at Amritsar. Next day, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 and brought to their notice the incident happened and requested for the repair of the vehicle in question. After checking the same, the mechanic in the workshop told the complainant that they are not  in a position to repair the vehicle free of cost although it is within warranty period stating that it is not covered under the warranty rules because the defect in the vehicle is owing to the adulterated diesel put by the Opposite Party No. 2 in the vehicle and the Opposite Party No.1 refused to repair the vehicle. Opposite Party No.1 issued customer information sheet dated 1.10.2015 stating that this car received the roadside assistance under off-road condition. It was not getting start and after a long step-by-step investigation and diagnosis, it was found that the fuel tank was containing huge amount of water which resulted in failure of fuel injectors, fuel rail and fuel pump and as the failure occurred due to bad quality of fuel, they suggested to repair it on payment basis and it does not falling under warranty policy. However, under the compelling circumstances, the complainant got the said vehicle repaired from Opposite Party No.1 and agreed to make the payment of service and parts etc. to them. Accordingly, the vehicle remained with Opposite Party No.1 for a period  of about 37-38 days for its repair/ service. Ultimately, Opposite Party No.1 repaired the same and charged Rs.1,25,587/- from the complainant including the price of the parts, labour, fuel filling charges etc. etc.  During this period, the complainant suffered a great inconvenience, harassment, mental pain, agony, tension besides huge financial loss for going to his business place from his house and way back while hiring the private taxi and this way, he had spent about Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/- within this period which the Opposite Parties are liable to pay.                 Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,587/- which was paid by the complainant to Opposite Party No.1 for the repair of the vehicle within warranty period.

b)      Opposite Parties may be directed to pay a sum of Rs.5 lacs as compensation for suffering mental pain, agony, harassment and inconvenience at their hands;

c)       Costs of the legal notice amounting to  Rs.2200/- be also awarded.

d)      Costs of the proceedings to the tune of Rs.22,000/-     

e)       The amount of Rs.40,000/- spent by the complainant from his pocket for hiring the private taxi for going to his business  during  the period of 37-38 days.

f)       Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled to under law and equity.  

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the vehicle of the complainant got defected due to contaminated/ adulterated fuel in fuel tank containing huge amount of water in it and as per clause A sub clause (12) of the 24 Months Warranty to New vehicle given by the manufacturer, warranty is not covered in any claim arising out from contaminated fuel, as such the answering Opposite Party No.1 is not liable to pay any claim to the complainant. The complainant has himself admitted in para No.4 that his vehicle became out of order and defective on account of the supply of bad quality of fuel/ diesel by the Opposite Party No. 2 as it contained huge amount of water in it, therefore he is not entitled to any claim from the Opposite Party No.1. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant brought  his vehicle to the replying Opposite Party No.1 for its repair and after investigation, it was found that there was water in the fuel tank and due to the said reason the damage was caused and it was brought into the  knowledge of the complainant and also specifically stated that the said damage do not cover under the warranty and the complainant given his consent to repair the vehicle on payment basis, therefore, the vehicle was repaired.             Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       Opposite Party No. 2 also  appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complainant has filed the present complaint on distorted facts and has not come to the court with clean hands and it is a cardinal principle of law that one has not come to the court with the clean hands is not entitled to any relief as such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is submitted that  the complainant was sold the pure diesel as supplied by Indian Oil Corporation Limited and the same was stored and put to sale under their supervision and quality control mechanism, Each supply from the said supplied was quality tested and sample drawn and checking and the sale is made with quality control system and the customer can check the quality of the supplied product for on the spot test anytime.  It is pertinent to mention over here that from the said supply number of customers were supplied same quality diesel and no such complaint was received ever and moreover, the sample drawn at the relevant time was accordingly of the quality and standard approved, the complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.  

4.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C13  and closed his evidence.

5.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh. Jasbir Singh, Manager Ex.OP1/1 alongwith copy of document Ex.OP1/2 and similarly, Opposite Party No. 2 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Salil Chopra Ex.OP2/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.Op2/5  and thereafter, the Opposite Parties closed their respective evidence.

6.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

7.       Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated  the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that  he purchased Ford Figo vehicle (diesel version) from Opposite Party No.1 on 10.11.2014  against retail invoice  giving complete particulars of the vehicle bearing RC No.PB-02-CL-5377 for valuable consideration which was duly paid. On 22.9.2015, the complainant purchased diesel for his said vehicle for Rs.2000/- from Opposite Party No. 2 vide receipt No. 3053 dated 22.9.2015 and then the complainant started the journey for Amritsar as he was already on the way from Attari Wagha Border towards Amritsar. Said vehicle of the complainant suddenly stopped in the way at night time at about 10.30 PM and it was not moving ahead, where no workshop or mechanic was available at that time to repair it and to start the vehicle, so he was left in the lurch as he was totally confused what to do with the vehicle either to leave it on the roadside or to take it as a safer place at that time, due to which he suffered a great mental pain, agony, harassment and inconvenience, however facing a great difficulty, he reached at Amritsar. Next day, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 and brought to their notice the incident happened and requested for the repair of the vehicle in question. After checking the same, the mechanic in the workshop told the complainant that they are not  in a position to repair the vehicle free of cost although it is within warranty period stating that it is not covered under the warranty rules because the defect in the vehicle is owing to the adulterated diesel put by the Opposite Party No. 2 in the vehicle and the Opposite Party No.1 refused to repair the vehicle. Opposite Party No.1 issued customer information sheet dated 1.10.2015 stating that this car received the roadside assistance under off-road condition. It was not getting start and after a long step-by-step investigation and diagnosis, it was found that the fuel tank was containing huge amount of water which resulted in failure of fuel injectors, fuel rail and fuel pump and as the failure occurred due to bad quality of fuel, they suggested to repair it on payment basis and it does not falling under warranty policy. However, under the compelling circumstances, the complainant got the said vehicle repaired from Opposite Party No.1 and agreed to make the payment of service and parts etc. to them. Accordingly, the vehicle remained with Opposite Party No.1 for a period  of about 37-38 days for its repair/ service. Ultimately, Opposite Party No.1 repaired the same and charged Rs.1,25,587/- from the complainant including the price of the parts, labour, fuel filling charges etc. etc.  During this period, the complainant suffered a great inconvenience, harassment, mental pain, agony, tension besides huge financial loss for going to his business place from his house and way back while hiring the private taxi and this way, he had spent about Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/- within this period which the Opposite Parties are liable to pay.

8.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 has repelled the aforesaid contentions of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that the vehicle of the complainant got defected due to contaminated/ adulterated fuel in fuel tank containing huge amount of water in it and as per clause A sub clause (12) of the 24 Months Warranty to New vehicle given by the manufacturer, warranty is not covered in any claim arising out from contaminated fuel, as such the answering Opposite Party No.1 is not liable to pay any claim to the complainant. The complainant has himself admitted in para No.4 that his vehicle became out of order and defective on account of the supply of bad quality of fuel/ diesel by the Opposite Party No. 2 as it contained huge amount of water in it, therefore he is not entitled to any claim from the Opposite Party No.1. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant brought  his vehicle to the replying Opposite Party No.1 for its repair and after investigation, it was found that there was water in the fuel tank and due to the said reason the damage was caused and it was brought into the  knowledge of the complainant and also specifically stated that the said damage do not cover under the warranty and the complainant given his consent to repair the vehicle on payment basis, therefore, the vehicle was repaired.

9.       But however, Opposite Party No. 2 also denied the averments made by the complainant  against them on the ground that the complainant was sold the pure diesel as supplied by Indian Oil Corporation Limited and the same was stored and put to sale under their supervision and quality control mechanism, Each supply from the said supplied was quality tested and sample drawn and checking and the sale is made with quality control system and the customer can check the quality of the supplied product for on the spot test anytime.  It is pertinent to mention over here that from the said supply number of customers were supplied same quality diesel and no such complaint was received ever and moreover, the sample drawn at the relevant time was accordingly of the quality and standard approved, the complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint.

10.              It is not the denial of the case of the parties that the complainant purchased Ford Figo vehicle (diesel version) from Opposite Party No.1 on 10.11.2014  against retail invoice  giving complete particulars of the vehicle bearing RC No.PB-02-CL-5377 for valuable consideration which was duly paid. It is also not denied that on 22.9.2015, the complainant purchased diesel for his said vehicle for Rs.2000/- from Opposite Party No. 2 vide receipt No. 3053 dated 22.9.2015.  The only contention of the Opposite Party No.1 is that the vehicle of the complainant got defected due to contaminated/ adulterated fuel in fuel tank containing huge amount of water in it and as per clause A sub clause (12) of the 24 Months Warranty to New vehicle given by the manufacturer, warranty is not covered in any claim arising out from contaminated fuel, as such the answering Opposite Party No.1 is not liable to pay any claim to the complainant. On the other hand, Opposite Party No. 2 has specifically denied this averments made by Opposite Party No.1 on the ground that the complainant was sold the pure diesel as supplied by Indian Oil Corporation Limited and the same was stored and put to sale under their supervision and quality control mechanism, Each supply from the said supplied was quality tested and sample drawn and checking and the sale is made with quality control system and the customer can check the quality of the supplied product for on the spot test anytime.  The said supply number of customers were supplied same quality diesel and no such complaint was received ever and moreover, the sample drawn at the relevant time was accordingly of the quality and standard approved, hence there is no fault on the part of Opposite Party No. 2.  The complainant or Opposite Party No.1 has no where proved  on the file that the fuel sold by the Opposite Party No. 2 is contaminated or defective neither the complainant or Opposite Party No.1 has produced any such witness in this regard who could prove that the diesel sold by the Opposite Party No. 2 is contaminated or not good fuel. On the other hand, Sh.Jasbir Singh, Manager of Opposite Party No.1 appeared on 18.5.2017 before this Forum and made statement  that  he looks after the complete work sale and service of Opposite Party No.1 and he have not checked the vehicle in dispute himself when it was brought to Opposite Party No.1. He has not made the report Ex.C4 and signed by him. It is made by the office engineer. He has not taken any samples of the fuel from the car but he has delivered the contents of fuel to the customer. He has not got the fuel checked from any of the laboratory. They have also not got the defective parts checked from any laboratory.  In view of the aforesaid statement of Sh.Jasbir Singh, Manager of Opposite Party No.1, it appears that there is no defect in the fuel sold by Opposite Party No.2 to the complainant, moreover, the said fuel of the vehicle was never checked from any of the laboratory, so without any report of any competent laboratory, it can not be said that the fuel sold by Opposite Party No. 2 to the complainant was contaminated, and in such a situation, certainly, there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1 who have charged the complainant within warranty period on account of repair of the vehicle on the excuse that the fuel put in the vehicle by Opposite Party No. 2 was contaminated. The complainant has produced the copy of bill Ex.C2 vide which the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1,25,587/-  to the Opposite Party No.1 on account of repair of the vehicle within warranty period.

11.     In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint against Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,25,587/- charged from the complainant vide bill Ex.C2. Opposite Party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of compensation for causing him mental tension, harassment and inconvenience besides Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. Complaint against Opposite Party No. 2 stands dismissed. Compliance of this order be made by Opposite Party No.1 within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order; failing which, awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of passing of order until full and final recovery.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 20.07.2017.