THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
APPEAL NO.300/2022
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
Adithya Fuel Station,
(Indian Oil Corporation Ltd)
By its Proprietor, … Appellant/s
P.Vishwanath S/o K.Puttaswamy,
Aged about 72 years,
K R S Road, Gokulam,
4th Stage, Opp. Anjaneya Temple,
Mysuru- 570 020
(By Sri.V.V.Gunjal, Advocate)
V/s
K.S.Mahadevappa,
S/o Subbaiah Gowda, … Respondent/s
Aged about 62 years,
No.1204, Bellavatta village,
RBI Post, Mysore-570003
(By Sri.S.Chandra, Advocate)
O R D E R
BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Opposite Party in complaint No.287/2018 has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, Mysore which directed them to pay excess amount collected for one liter petrol and Rs.2000-00 towards unfair trade practice and Rs.2000-00 towards litigation expenses with interest @ 8% per annum and submits that on 11-6-2018 the complainant filled the petrol to his Motor Bike-Honda Dream Yuga (CB-110 ME) BS-III bearing Reg. No.KA-09-HA-0872 full tank petrol and after filing the petrol, this appellant has issued a bill for Rs. 697.77. There afterwards, he noticed that, this Opposite Party has collected excess amount for one liter as capacity of the petrol tank of his bike is only eight liters whereas the Opposite Party have issued bill for Rs.697.77 towards nine liters, in fact they have not filled nine liters to tank of the bike hence submits the Opposite Party rendered unfair trade practice and filed a complaint before the District Consumer Commission. After appearance, this appellant took a contention that, though the capacity is eight liters, the nine liters of petrol was filled into tank as per the filling they have generated the bill to the nine liters and issued, hence submits there is no unfair trade practice. After trial, the District Consumer Commission allowed a complaint and directed the Opposite Parties to pay the above said amount hence, appellant before this Commission.
2. The learned advocate for appellant vehemently argued that, as per the instruction given by the complainant/ respondent only they filled full tank petrol on 11-6-2018, when the tank was filled nine liters, this appellant has generated bill for nine liters and received the said amount. Though tank capacity is eight liters only, the tank received additional one liter practically. The complainant has not produced any material before the District Consumer Commission from the department of Weights and Measures to justify the fuel capacity of the tank is only eight liters and further submits that, the system of calibration are fully digitalized and even if the petrol bunk people or the officers want to check the dispenser, they have to report the presence of the department and the Indian Oil Corporation who shares an OTP number then only after that all the tests and examinations are conducted as per the manual, there is no any discrepancy in the dispenser, the bill was generated as per the petrol dispensed and submits there is no any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service and prays to set aside the order passed by the District Consumer Commission.
3. On the other hand, the respondent advocate submits that, the manual issued by Honda Company clearly reflects that fuel capacity of the vehicle is only eight liters and the tank also designed to fill eight liters only, even on 11-6-2018 the Opposite Party have filled eight liters of petrol to the tank of the vehicle in spite of that they have generated bill for nine liters and received extra amount on one liter. Hence the Opposite Party rendered unfair trade practice and the District Consumer Commission has rightly allowed the complaint, hence prays to dismiss the appeal.
4. Heard from both parties.
5. On going through the certified copy of the order, memorandum of appeal and news paper article produced by the appellant, we noticed that, the complainant on 11-6-2018 he filled his vehicle full tank and the Opposite Party have issued bill for Rs.697.77 for filling up nine liters of petrol. On observation of the manual, he noticed the petrol capacity of the tank of the vehicle is only eight liters and it contains only eight liters.
6. The District Consumer Commission after trial has come to the conclusion by considering the capacity of the tank and the Opposite Party rendered unfair trade practice and directed them to pay the above said amount.
7. We are of the opinion that, though the owners’ manual of the vehicle discloses the fuel capacity is eight liters, the tank actually receives more than eight liters in practical when filled because if the person who intended to fill full tank usually shakes his vehicle and makes an attempt to fill more fuel to the vehicle beyond its sensor level. We say that, the fuel capacity of the vehicle was given when it is filled up to a sensor level of the tank; there is a chance of filling the petrol beyond sensing level. Such being the case, we hold that the petrol tank of the vehicle can receive more than specified capacity mentioned in the owners’ manual book. The learned advocate for Opposite Party submits all the dispensers are calibrated digitally and no manual interference is acceptable by the dispensers, if at all anyone wants to check the dispensers with respect to the malfunction that has to be checked in the presence of Weights and Measures Department and Indian Oil Corporation with the receipt of OTP only. Hence submits there is no any malfunctions/discrepancy in the dispensers. Of Course we agree the arguments submitted by the learned advocate for the Opposite Party/appellant and we are of the opinion that, the petrol pumps will generates the bills only to the extent of petrol which was dispensed to the vehicles, in this case we noticed pump dispensed the petrol of nine liters to the complainant’s vehicle/bike and bill was generated accordingly. We found there is no any unfair trade practice rendered by Opposite Party at the time of filling the petrol to the tank of the vehicle. The complainant merely basing on the owners’ manuals book had alleged unfair trade practice that, the Opposite Party had received the excess amount on one liter without filling which holds no water. The District Consumer Commission made an error in arriving unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party without considering the practical fill up of the petrol in the tank. On observation of the article announced/published in the Star of Mysore dated 11-8-2022, it is reported that the vehicle fuel tank can hold more than what is specified in the manual. Therefore, it is well established that, the actual tank of the any vehicle will receive more petrol/diesel then specified in the owners’ manual. In view of that, the order passed by the District Consumer Commission is liable to be set aside and accordingly the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the complaint is dismissed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The appeal filed by the appellant is hereby allowed. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. No costs.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the appellant/Opposite Party.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
Member Judicial Member
