Punjab

Sangrur

CC/459/2014

Makhan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

I-Pol Shuh Petrolium Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Jarnail Singh

03 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    459

                                                Instituted on:      08.08.2014

                                                Decided on:       03.03.2015

 

 

Makhan Singh son of Gurdial Singh R/o Village Daske, Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             I-Pol Shuh Petroleum Ltd. Plot No.5 to 14, Behind Deewar and Shah Industrial Estate, Valiv Village Vasui (East), Distt. Thane, Maharashtra through its Prop.

2.             Hind Motors, Patiala Road, Sunam, Distt. Sangrur through its Prop. Mahavir Garg.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Jarnail Singh, Adv.

For OP No.1              :       Shri Rajesh Garg, Adv.

For OP No.2              :       Exparte.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Makhan Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is the owner of vehicle truck 4018/18 bearing registration number PB-13-Y-9931. It is further averred that the complainant purchased mobile/lubricants cane of 15 litres manufactured by OP number 1 from OP number 2 on 12.4.2014 vide bill number 1120 dated 12.4.2014 for Rs.3650/- and the complainant got the service done of his truck from the Mechanic Jagtar Singh of Sunam on 12.4.2014 and the mobile oil purchased from OP number 2 was used for the same.   Thereafter the complainant run the truck in question about 200 kilometres and thereafter checked the mobil oil of the engine and found that there were two litres less mobile oil from the mark of suitable point. As such, the complainant came back and visited Mechanic Jagtar Singh, from whom the complainant had got the truck in question serviced.  Thereafter due to use of lubricants supplied by the OPs, the engine of the truck in question became defective.  As such, the complainant approached OPs, but nothing happened. Thereafter the complainant approached OP number 1 through customer care number 09779009103 and OP number 1 sent their employee to check the quality of lubricants as well as engine of the truck and told that the complainant can get the truck repaired from any workshop, as such the complainant got repaired the truck from Shri Jagtar Singh, who received Rs.4000/- as labour charges from the complainant for repair of engine and Rs.25000/- were spent on spares for repair of the engine.  It is further averred that the complainant was earning approximately Rs.40,000/- per week and due to the negligence of the OP the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.1,05,000/-.  The complainant also got served a legal notice upon the OPs, but all in vain.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- as loss and damage of engine along with interest and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint, that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.  It is further stated that the complainant had not purchased the lubricants from OP number 2 against the bill.  It is further denied that the vehicle of the complainant damaged by using the oil manufactured by OP number 1.  It is stated that the complainant has filed a false complaint only to claim benefits from the OP.  The complainant is using the vehicle for commercial purpose.   The other allegations levelled in the complaint by the complainant have been denied by the OP in toto.  It is further stated that if there is any defect in the truck, the same could be due to his own negligence of the complainant.  Lastly, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

3.             Opposite party number 2 did not appear on 1.12.2014, as such, it was proceeded exparte.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 copies of bills, Ex.C-5 postal receipt, Ex.C-6 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-7 reply of legal notice, Ex.C-8 copy of DL, Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-10 affidavits and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.Op1/1 affidavit, Ex.OP1/2 copy of power of attorney, Ex.OP1/3 to Ex.OP1/5 copies of certificates of registration, Ex.OP1/6 to Ex.OP1/0 copies of purchase agreement, Ex.OP1/10 to Ex.OP1/18 copies of purchase orders, Ex.OP1/19 to Ex.OP1/20 copies of supply orders, Ex.OP1/21 to Ex.OP1/22 copies of purchase orders, Ex.OP1/23 copy of corporate profile, Ex.OP/24 copy of certificate of registration, Ex.OP1/25 elpol multi purpose premium hi performance grease box empty and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             The opposite party number 2 is already exparte and did not file the reply of complaint.  Ex.C-1 is a copy of bill dated 12.4.2014 showing purchase of 15 litres of mobile from OP number 2.

 

7.             In the present case the question for determination before us is whether the engine of the vehicle of the complainant damaged due to the use of the mobile oil supplied by the OPs and the complainant was forced to spent an amount of Rs.29,000/- on the repair of the engine of the truck in question.  We have very carefully perused the whole case file, but failed to find that the engine of the truck of the complainant suffered due to the mobil oil supplied by the Ops.  The complainant has not produced on record any report of the laboratory to show that the mobil oil was defective one.  Further the complainant has not got tested the sample of the mobil oil in question from any laboratory to prove on record that the same was defective one.  Further the complainant has not produced any expert opinion of qualified engineer that the engine of the truck damaged due to the use of the defective mobil oil supplied by the OPs.  

       

8.             Though the complainant has contended that the truck in question consumed two litres of mobil oil after its running about 200 KMs.  But, there is no documentary evidence on record that what was the meter reading when the 15 litres of mobil oil was put in the engine and at what reading it consumed 2 litres of mobile oil.  There may be so many reasons for the defects in the engine.  More over, the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to show that what was the model of the truck meaning thereby that what was the year of manufacturing of the truck.  Further the complainant has not produced any bill to show that what kind of parts of the engine were replaced.  The complainant has produced only the rough slips Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4, which in our mind carries no value in the eye of law.  In the circumstances of the case, we find that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to support his contention that the engine of the truck damaged due to the defective supply of mobil oil by the OPs.

 

9.            In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                March 3, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member