Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/200/2022

Vinod Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager CITCO Petrol Pump - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Narender Pal Bhardwaj

06 Dec 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/200/2022
Date of Institution	:	28/02/2022
Date of Decision	:	06/12/2024

 

Vinod Kumar S/o Sh. Ramdhari,  aged around 39 years,  R/o 88-B, Garden Homes, Near Sky Net Society, Zirakpur, Pin Code: 140603, sole proprietor Hind South Logistic, office address at SCF No.55-C, 2nd Floor, Near Sky Net Enclave Lohgarh, Zirakpur- 140603.

                                ...  Complainant

V E R S U S

1.Manager, CITCO Petrol Pump situated at Hallomajra, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Near Poultry Farm, Chandigarh-160002.

2.Managing Director, The Chandigarh Industrial and Tourism Development Corporation Limited (CITCO), office at first floor, SCO-9A, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh-160019.

3.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) at Indane Area Office, Tel Bhawan, Plot No.6-A, Sector-19-B, Chandigarh-160019.

4.Chief Divisional Retails Sales Manager (Marketing Division), Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Chandigarh, Divisional Office at S.C.O 35-36, Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160019.

5.Indian Oil Corporation (IOCL), Head Office, 3079/3, J B Tito Marg, Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi-110049.

…. Opposite Parties

BEFORE:
	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA	MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:
	Sh. Narender Pal Bhardwaj, Counsel for complainant
	Sh. Harveet Singh Sehgal, Counsel for OPs 1 & 2
	Sh. Ashish Kapoor, Counsel for OPs 3 to 5 (through VC)

ORDER BY BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA, MEMBER

1.        The complainant has filed the present consumer complaint alleging that he is running the business of transportation for his livelihood and through his proprietorship firm namely Hind South Logistics, he is a registered customer with Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) and had been issued XTRAPOWER-Fleet Card (Annexure C-1).  On 27.11.2021, he received an order from another transporter namely Mehra Transport Company for delivery of toilet assembly goods from Lalru, Punjab to Raigad, Maharashtra  within a time bound period of 36 hours against freight charges of ₹60,000/-. Thereafter, two truck drivers were assigned the task of making the delivery of the aforesaid order and they loaded the goods in a 6 tyre truck.  On the instructions of the complainant the truck drivers decided to get the fuel tank filled from Chandigarh being cheaper than other states.  Accordingly, on 27.11.2021 the vehicle reached OP-1 petrol pump at around 9:47 p.m. and after confirmation from the attendant/official that they accept the aforesaid card, about 540 litres of diesel worth ₹43,904/- was got filled. However, subsequently the official/attendant of the OPs refused to accept the payment through the card in question and insisted on making the payment through cash or UPI.  The complainant had even recharged the said card on 27.11.2021 at 12:48 p.m by transferring ₹50,000/-.  With a view to resolve the matter, complainant rushed to OPs 1 & 2 at midnight and made calls to the senior officials but they did not answer.  The staff of OPs 1 & 2 threatened the drivers that in case they failed to make the payment through any other mode, they would take out the filled fuel in the morning.  Keeping in view the scheduled delivery, the complainant through his friend namely Rajesh Kumar transferred the total amount of ₹43,904/- through Google Pay at around 12:30 am. to the employee of OP/petrol pump namely Sh. Rakesh Kumar vide two different transactions of ₹22,302/- and ₹21,602/-.  In this process OPs wasted nearly 4-5 hours of the complainant.  The complainant even recorded his complaint in the feedback book on 28.11.2021 at about 1:30 a.m. and also sent legal notice.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint.
2.        In their written version OPs 1 & 2 admitted the factual matrix.  It is averred that that Xtra Power Fleet Card is a form of a prepaid card issued by IOCL and it works on a separate machine which is again provided by the IOCL. It is averred that despite repeated tries, payment from the said card could not be made as there was no network in the card machine. The driver and owner of the vehicle were requested to make the payment through any other card or any other mode but initially they refused and after much persuasion they finally made the payment through Google Pay.  In this process delay of about 2 -  2 ½ hours occurred  as the truck had arrived at the pump at around 9.50 p.m. and the payment was made at 12.30 a.m., which was attributable to complainant only as he refused to make the payment through alternate means.  The remaining allegations have been denied being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.        In their separate written version OPs 3 to 5 have averred that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and answering OPs.  It is further averred that the answering OPs had entered into a supplementary dealership agreement for fleet card programme with OP-1 as per which all liability, if any, is of OPs 1 & 2. The remaining allegations have been denied for want of knowledge. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
4.        The complainant chose not to file replication.
5.        Parties led evidence in support of their case. 
6.        We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record, including written arguments.
7.        It is observed from the record that the grievance of the complainant is primarily two-fold i.e. due to the act and conduct of the OPs he could not deliver the consignment  within the agreed 36 hours and secondly the harassment he had to undergo at the petrol pump due to non acceptance of the payment through the card in question.
8.        So far as the first grievance is concerned, complainant has failed to prove on record anything as per which he was to deliver the consignment within 36 hours.  Even if the same is believed to be true, though without admitting it, since OPs were not party to the said understanding/agreement, no liability can be fastened upon them.
9.        As far as the second grievance is concerned, as per own case of the complainant, the vehicle in question reached the OP petrol pump at around 9:47 p.m. and total payment of ₹43,904/- was finally made through Google Pay at around 12:30 p.m. after repeated attempts to make the payment through the card in question failed.    
10.        In this regard the defence of OPs 1 & 2 is that the payment through the Xtra Power Fleet Card could not be made as there was no network whereas the defence of OPs 3 to 5 is that as per the supplementary dealership agreement entered into between OPs 1 & 2 and OPs 3 to 5, all liability on account of refusal or inability was that of OPs 1 & 2.
11.        However, OPs 1 & 2 failed to justify as to why there was no network for such a long period of 2 – 2 ½ hours.  Things would have been different, had the alleged network issue been there for only 10-20 minutes.  Not only this, OPs 1 & 2 have not placed on record any cogent evidence in support of their defence that the IOCL failed to accept payment due to non availability of network.  The card in question was taken by the complainant for his ease and convenience and not to cause undue harassment to him for such a long time at such an unearthly hour.  Hence, the aforesaid act and conduct of OPs 1 & 2 certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed against them.
12.        In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint is partly allowed and OPs 1 & 2 are directed to pay lump sum compensation of ₹10,000/- to the complainant for the harassment caused to him.
13.          This order be complied with by OPs 1 & 2 within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.
14.        Since no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been proved against OPs 3 to 5, the consumer complaint qua them stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 
15.        The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
16.        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

ANNOUNCED 06/12/2024 hg	[PAWANJIT SINGH] PRESIDENT
	[BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA] MEMBER