Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/72/2020

Aryan Jajma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Oil Corporation Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. S.P.Yadav

21 Dec 2021

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	72 of 2020
Date  of  Institution	:	30.11.2020
Date   of   Decision	:	21.12.2021

 

 

 

 

Aryan Jajma son of Sh.S.P.Yadav, Resident of H.No.237, Preet Nagar, Zirakpur, Distt. Mohali, Chandigarh

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  Indian Oil Corporation Limited through Executive Director of Indian 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, UT, Chandigarh.

         ….. Opposite Parties 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN            PRESIDENT

         SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.B.M.SHARMA                    MEMBER                         

 

 

For Complainant :  Sh.S.P.Yadav, Advocate

For OP (s)        :  Sh.Ashish Kapoor, Advocate

 

 

PER B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

         Concisely put, the complainant visited OP No.2 Petrol Pump on 2.1.2020 and asked the official there to fill Diesel (tank full) in his Maruti Breeza Car No.CH-01-BM-1972, whereupon the Diesel Filling Machine of OP No.3 showed that 51.47 liters of diesel has been filled.  It is stated that this was very astonishing for the complainant to see that OP No.3 shown to fill 51.47 liters of diesel in his Maruti Breeza Car No.CH-01-BM-1972, against its Tank Capacity of 48 liters, whereas the car was already having 10 liters of diesel and 100 ml engine purifier liquid substance (Ann.C-1 to  C-3).  The complainant asked the OP No.3 to show the record stored in the ‘Automation’ computer, but they denied showing the same.  It is stated that the complainant also lodged the complaint with OP No.3 through Whatsapp, but it was refused (Ann.C-4).  It is submitted that how it is possible to fill more than 60 litres fuel in a fuel tank whereas maximum intake capacity of the Brezza Car is 48 liters only  (Ann.C-2). It is also submitted that OPs also sold 100 ml substance in sealed bottle by saying that by putting it inside the fuel tank the nozzle of the engine will be purified and cleaned and mileages will be increased, which was put in the fuel tank.  A legal notice dated 5.1.2020 was also sent to the OPs, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the above act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2]       The OPs No.1 & 2 have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the concerned CA first showed the customer Zero reading before starting of fuel dispensing, then filled the car tank to full capacity, as requested by complainant and the total fuel filled in the car bearing Regd. No.CH-01-BM-1972 was 51.47 Liters. It is stated that at that time, the complainant did not raise any complaint nor contacted the Manager who was present at the retail outlet at the time of the alleged incident.  It is also stated that concerned CA was not aware of the quantity of fuel already present in the car, if any.  Neither complainant informed the CA regarding the quantity of fuel already present in the car tank.  It is submitted 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 is also submitted that it is well known fact that a vehicle’s fuel tank can hold few extra liters.  It is stated that the legal notice of complainant was duly replied by OPs. Denying rest of the allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contention.

4]       We have heard the Ld.Counsel for the parties and have gone through entire documents on record.

5]      It is established from Official Detail/Owner’s Manual & Service Booklet of Vitara Brezza Car (Ann.C-2), issued by the Manufacture of the Car in question, that the Fuel Tank Capacity of the vehicle is 48 Liters.  It is also mentioned that the fuel tank has some space for air for fuel expansion in hot weather.  It also cannot be presumed that when the car in question reached the Filling Station of OPs, its fuel tank was totally empty.  The contention of the complainant that there was already 10 liters of fuel in his car, may not be correct, but it is obvious that some fuel must be there already in the fuel tank of the car so that it can reach to the Filling Station.  In this view of the matter, the admitted position of the OPs about filling of 51.47 liters of fuel in the car in question, which has Fuel Tank Capacity of 48 liters only, clearly establishes that either the malfunctioning of the fuel filling system or filling machine of the OP Petrol Pump and in this way, the complainant has wrongly been made to pay in excess.  Thus, this Commission is of the firm view that Opposite Parties have failed to render proper services to the complainant. Therefore, the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice resorted to by OPs is proved, which certainly has caused financial loss and harassment to the complainant.

6]       In the light of above observations, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties. Accordingly, the complaint stands allowed against the Opposite Parties with direction to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.5000/- to the complainant, which includes excess payment of petrol, compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.5,000/- apart from the above awarded amount.

        The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced                                                             

21^st Dec., 2021                                                                                                                                                         sd/-

                                      (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER