SRI. SAJEESH.K.P : MEMBER

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 for seeking direction against opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/-  to the complainant as loss and damages  and pay cost also to the complainant.

Complaint in brief

            On 10/07/2022, complainant went to OPs petrol pump to fill disel in Maruthi Ritz VDI car which complainant own and complainant filled diesel for Rs.3,380/-.  After few moment complainant felt unusual experience while driving and somehow managed to drive the vehicle at Kasargod.  On 13/07/2022, complainant entrusted the car at M/s KVR car service at Kasargod and on 14/07/2022, the mechanic detected water content in the fuel by taking samples of diesel from fuel tank which was filled from OP’s petrol pump.  In order to cure the defect complainant met the expenditure of Rs.24,316/- by cleaning common rail,         injector, diesel pump etc.  Due to the malpractice of mixing up of water and diesel caused hardship to complainant since he availed service of taxi by paying huge rent.  Hence this complaint.

            After filing the complaint, notice was issued to all OPs and which was duly served.  The OP 1 and 2 filed vakkalath, and OP 3’s notice returned with an endorsement as “unclaimed”.  Hence the commission declared as set ex-parte.  After that OP1 and 2 are absent and not filed any version.  Hence the commission held that OP 1 and 2 have no version and the case proceed against the OPs as set ex-parte.

                Even though OP has remained ex-parte, it is for the complainant to establish the allegation made by him against the OP.   Hence the complainant was called up on to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents.  Accordingly complainant has chosen to produce affidavit along with 7 documents marking them Ext. A1 to A7.  Ext. A1 is the lawyer notice sent complainant to OPs, Ext.A2 is the reply notice sent by OP to complainant and Ext.A3 is the bank statement of Mrs. Nalinikutty  A K, Ext.A4 is the Job card  retail-tax invoice issued by KVR, Ext.A5 is the bill issued by Mangalore Diesels, Ext.A6 is the diesel charge and Ext.A7 is the taxi receipt issued one Mr.Damodaran.  Complainant examined as Pw1. The OPs remained absent in case. At the end the commission heard the case on merit.

            Let us have clear glance into the documents produced by complainant Ext.A1 and Ext. A2, lawyer notice and reply notice respectively which specifically stated that an amount of Rs.3,380/- credited on 10/07/2022 through SBI debit card No.X3541.  On the perusal of Ext.A3 it is seen that the bank statement of one Mrs. Nalininkutty A K residing at Anchanpeedika, Parvathy, Kannur produced by complainant to show the transaction of Rs.3,380/-.  It is to notice that nowhere in the complaint or affidavit, Complainant mentioned about the relation with the person from whose account the amount debited.  The consideration was made from Mrs. Nalinikutty A K towards OPs in this case. Whether the aforesaid Mrs. Nalinikutty is a beneficiary of complainant is not clear from complaint or affidavit.  From any of the Exts. produced by complainant, the commission could not find that complainant comes under the purview of definition of Consumer Under section 7(1) of Consumer Protection Act 2019. Moreover, complainant stated that he travelled from Kannur to Kasargod by driving his car after filling diesel from OP’s pump and he suffered difficulties due to the adulterated fuel.  According to this statement, complainant had not produced any expert report like density test, evaporation test etc. to show the mixing up of diesel with water.  However, complainant not being a consumer comes under the purview of section 7(1) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, since the consideration is made  from Mrs. Nalinikutty account ie Ext.A3 who is not a party in this case.  No document produced by complainant to prove that he is a consumer.

            Hence, the commission came into a conclusion that the deficiency in service towards complainant is not proved since complainant failed to establish that he is a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and therefore the complaint is dismissed.

            In the result the complaint is dismissed and no order as to cost.

Exts.

A1-Lawyer notice

A2-Reply notice

A3-Bank statement

A4-Job card retail-tax invoice

A5-Bill

A6-Diesel charge

A7-Taxi receipt

       Sd/                                                                                Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                                 MEMBER                                             MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                               Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

/Forward by order/

Assistant Registrar