DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Tuesday the 27th day of September 2022
C.C. 621 / 2014
Complainant
Nijas Bakzar. P,
S/o. Abdul Nazar. P,
‘Alif’ Kottayil,
Kottayil Paramba,
Kallai Post,
Kozhikode-673003.
(By Adv. Sri. V.M. Musthafa )
Opposite Parties
- The Managing Director,
K.V.R. Auto Fuels,
(Dealers, Puthiyangadi Village),
Near Koya Road,
Kozhikode-673021.
(By Adv. Sri. Shyam Padman)
- The Managing Director,
Reliance Industries Limited,
Makers Chambers –IV,
Nariman Ppoint,
Mumbai-400021.
(By Adv. Sri. Janil John)
ORDER
By Sri. V. BALAKRISHNAN - MEMBER
Complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The complainant was the owner of the Renault car bearing Regn. No. KL 11 AP 1200. On 21/11/2014 he approached the first opposite party for filling diesel in his car. The complainant had filled 39.57 liters and paid an amount of Rs. 2,270/- for it. After driving some distance the warning light of the dash board was on and an unusual sound from the engine was heard and engine missing was experienced. On the next day ( 22/11/2014) the complainant brought his car to the authorized service centre at Calicut. He was informed that the problem was due to mixing of water in diesel.
3. The complainant thereafter met the first opposite party and complained. An indifferent approach was taken by the first opposite party who told that they were only dealers of Reliance Petroleum Product and what they were doing was only selling the supplied product of the second opposite party.
4. The car was serviced at the authorized service centre and they cleaned fuel tank and fuel lines and replaced fuel filter. A sum of Rs. 3,287/- was paid to the service centre as the service charge. The first opposite party had supplied diesel mixed water and thus caused trouble to his vehicle. According to the complainant the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. By the act of the opposite parties the complainant had undergone several mental pain, hardship and loss of money and time. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 20,557/- as compensation which includes the cost of the fuel (Rs. 2,270/-) the service charge of the vehicle (Rs. 3,287/-), Rs 15,000/- as compensation and cost of proceedings.
5. The first and second opposite parties filed the version separately.
6.The first opposite party in his version had denied all the allegations and claims contained in the complaint. The first opposite party began business on 14/08/2013 as a non-government registered company. It is involved in sale of auto motive fuel including the activity of petrol filling station. The first opposite party is the authorized dealer of the second opposite party. It was submitted by the first opposite party that petroleum and petroleum products are essential commodities under Essential Commodities Act 1955 and as per the guidelines issued by the government from time to time the opposite party had thoroughly inspected the tank trucks in which he received the petroleum to ensure the quantity and quality of the products that meets the relevant specifications. The entire process is automated and hence no form of adulteration could be possible from the part of the opposite party. There is no truth or bonafide in the allegation and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs.
7. In the version filed by the second opposite party it is contended that the complainant is liable to be dismissed summarily with cost for misjoinder of the parties. All the allegation in the complainant are denied by the second opposite party. The complaint purchased diesel from first opposite party as per retail invoice dated 21/11/2014. The complainant had neither purchased any goods nor had availed of any service for consideration from second opposite party. Thus in this case the complainant is not a Consumer as against the opposite party No. 2, as he had not purchased any goods or availed any service from the 2nd opposite party. Therefor a complaint against the 2nd opposite party deserves to be dismissed with costs.
8. The points that arise for determination in this case are:
(1) Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
(2) Whether there was deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties as alleged ?
(3) Reliefs and costs.
9. PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts A1 to A3 were marked on side of the complainant. RW1 was examined and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the first opposite party. The second opposite party adduce no evidence.
10. Heard.
11 – Point No - 1
The first opposite party is the dealer of the second opposite party. The complainant had purchased the product produced by the second opposite party. The second opposite party has received consideration for the product. Hence the complainant is the consumer.
12. Point No.2. The complainant has approached this Commission with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay the complainant an amount of Rs. 2,270/- towards the cost of the fuel, to pay an amount of Rs. 3,287/- towards the service charge of the vehicle and an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards the compensation and the cost of proceedings. The allegation is that diesel mixed with water was fill in his vehicle from the pump of first opposite party.
13. In order to substantiate his case the complainant himself as examined as PW1. PW1 has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint. Ext. A1 is the cash bill issued by 1st opposite party. Ext. A2 is the bill given by the authorized service centre of the vehicle. As per Ext. A1 the complainant had filled 39.57 liters of diesel for his vehicle Reg. No. KL 11 AP 1200 on 21.11.2014. There is no dispute about Ext. A1. Ext. A2 is the cash bill of repair given to the complainant from the authorized service centre on 24-11-2014. Ext A2 is also undisputed. From Ext. A1 it is clear that almost full tank of diesel was filled in the vehicle from the pump of the 1st opposite party on 21/11/2014. From Ext. A2 it is clear that the vehicle was produced at the service centre on the next day itself. From Ext. A2 the nature of the repair works carried out shows ‘found water in diesel, cleaned tank and fuel lines and replaced fuel filter”. It is also documented by PW2 who is the service manager, that the trouble to the vehicle was due to the mixing of water with diesel. Ongoing through the Ext. A1 and Ext. A2 there is no any reason to disbelieve the statement of the complainant. The complainant has stated that the warning light in dash board was on, while driving a short distance after re-filling fuel on the day. In the chief examination of PW2 it was clearly deposed by him that while inspecting vehicle on 22/11/2014 the water fuel warning lamp was on which indicate mixing of diesel with water. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of PW2. The possibility of mixing water from any other pump or source is ruled out as the vehicle was inspected in service centre on next day of filling the diesel from the pump of first opposite party. There is no reason to disbelieve PW1. It is also to be admitted that the trouble to the vehicle started within hours of fuel filling and vehicle was produced for repair on next day itself. Usually the closing of the fuel tank of the vehicle after re-filling is done by the workers of the pump. Even though the 1st opposite party had produced Ext. B1 (daily density register) and Ext. B2 (daily stock register), it is not a material evidence to show the quality of the fuel in this case. It is true that the fuel was not examined in a competent laboratory. In the light of the cogent and convincing evidence of PW2, the non-testing in a laboratory is not a material in this case. Going through all the available documents and evidence we find that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant had suffered an amount of Rs. 2,270/- for the cost of the fuel that was removed from service centre, which is to be paid by opposite parties. Again he paid Rs. 3,287/- towards the repair of the vehicle. The amount is to be compensated by the opposite parties. Also the complainant is to be compensated for the hardship suffered. Rs. 2,000/- is a reasonable compensation that is to be paid by the opposite parties. Towards the cost of the proceedings Rs. 2,000/- is to be paid by the opposite parties. Hence the complainant is entitled to realise a total amount of Rs. 9,557/- from opposite parties.
14. Point No 2. In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows:
(a) CC No. 621/2014 is allowed in part.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,270/- (Rupees Two thousand two hundred and seventy only) as cost of the fuel to the complainant.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs3,287/- (Rupees three thousand and two hundred and eighty seven only) as cost of repair charges of the vehicle to the complainant.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the hardship suffered.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant towards cost of proceedings.
- The payment as aforesaid shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me and Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 27th day of September, 2022.
Date of Filing: 01/12/ 2014 .
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Retail invoice dated 21-11-2014 issued by 1st opposite party.
Ext. A2 – Invoice dated 24-11-2014 issued by M/s. T.V. Sundaram
Iyangar & sons Ltd, Kozhikode.
Ext. A3- Repair order issued from the service centre to the
complainant.
Exhibits for the opposite parties
Ext. B1- Daily density register.
Ext. B2- Daily stock register.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW 1 – Nijas Bakzar. P
PW2 – Shahir
Witnesses for the opposite parties
RW1-Biju. K.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded / By order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
