Haryana

Ambala

CC/169/2016

Virender Dhingra - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Pooja Filling Station - Opp.Party(s)

Parveen Kumar Garg

07 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; AMBALA.

         C.C.No.169 of 2016.                  

         Date of Instt.:31.03.2016.                

          Date of Decision: 07.03.2018

Virender Dhingra aged about 56 years s/o Sh.Ram Jass resident of House No.161, Prabhu Ram Puram, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                             ..Complainant 

  Versus

1.M/s Pooja Filling Station, Jagadhari Road, Ambala Cantt. through its proprietor/authorized signatory.                                                          

   2.Sh.Nachiketa Mohanty, SO (RS) Ambala RSA Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Resident of House No.172, Sector -1 Jail Land, Ambala City.                  

   3.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. World Trade Centre, Barahakhamba Road, New Delhi through its General Manager (Retail Sales).

                                                                             ..OPs.         

              Complaint under Section 12 of CP Act

Before:                  SH.D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT.                                                        

                             SH.PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                             MS.ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                  

Present:                Sh.Parveen Kumar Garg, Advocate for complainant.                                 Sh.Harjot Singh, Advocate for OP No.1.                                                   Sh.SMS Kiberhan, Advocate for OP Nos. 2 & 3.             

ORDER

                             The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs with the averments that he approached Op No.1 on 15.08.2015 at 6.26 A.M. for refueling of motor car No.HR01AD-6594 and got filled petrol (MS) for Rs.1,000/- @ Rs.65.52/-  per litter (15.24 ltrs.) whereas the sale price of the same was Rs.64.36/- per ltr. The attendant disclosed that the price of Rs.64.36/- was to be effected from 16.08.2015 as orders of owner of Op No.1. The attendant had prepared cash memo No.207901 dated 15.08.2015 but refused to issue the same to the complainant, therefore, the complainant took the clip of the said petrol/fuel dispensing machine. Thereafter the complainant approached Op No.2 through email 22.08.2015 and asked about the price of petrol, (MS) on 15.08.2015 at 6.25 Hrs and further sent another email on 23.08.2015 but to no use. On 03.09.2015 the Op No.2 sent reply to the complainant asking him to fix time for discussion about grievance by inventing false excuses and further put off the matter on one pretext or the other through various correspondence dated 04.09.2015, 05.09.2015, 06.09.2015, 07.10.2015, 13.10.2015 besides two emails dated 27.02.2016.  The OPs did not disclose the sale price of Petrol (MS) on 15.08.2015.  The Op Nos. 2 & 3 were under obligation to take action against Op No.1 but to no avail. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.

2.                On notice Ops appeared and filed their separate replies. Op No.1 in its reply has submitted that as per the instructions of local police from time to time petrol pumps remain closed from 10 PM to 6 AM due to security reasons. The price of the petrol was slashed from Rs.65.52 pasia to Rs.64.34. paisa per ltr on the intervening night of 14/15.08.2015 therefore, the price in the machine was to be changed at the start of the day through automation which has a security password and can be operated by the owner of the petrol pump only. At 6.20 A.M. the customer car No.HR01-AD-6594 was first vehicle arrived at petrol pump and the attendant had dispensed petrol for a sum of Rs.1,000/- but the rate of petrol price @ Rs.65.62/- has been inadvertently written in routine manner. After realizing the mistake original cash memo No.207901 was cancelled on the spot and another cash memo No.207902 dated 15.08.2015 to the customer with correct price @ Rs.64.34/- was given to the customer for dispensed petrol i.e. 15.24 ltr. The changed petrol price was displayed on the petrol dispensing unit fixer at 6.36 AM on 15.08.2015 which is registered on the centralized service of the company, therefore, allegation of not disclosing the sale price of petrol on 15.08.2015 is palpably wrong. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

                   OP Nos.2 & 3 in their joint reply have submitted that while the attendant was issuing cash memo No.207902 after cancellation the earlier cash memo, the proprietor of Op No.1 had arrived at the filling station and expressed his regret to the complainant and the complainant was fully satisfied with the regrets expressed by the dealer and never asked for the complaint book which always kept in the open.  The complainant had sent emails to

3.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

4.                          It is not disputed that the complainant had refueled petrol for Rs.1000/- on 15.08.2015 at about 6.26 A.M. @ Rs.65.62/- per ltr. The grouse of the complainant is that the rate of petrol was slashed from Rs.65.62/- to Rs.64.34/- but the Op No.1 had charged excess amount of Rs.19.50/- (in round figure) and it was the duty of the Op No.1 to rectify the rates as per the new price schedule made by the company. On the other Op No.1 come with the plea that as per directions of the local police/President Ambala Petroleum Dealer Association, Ambala petrol pump remains closed from 10 P.M. to  6 A.M. (Annexure R2) and due to this reason the revised rate could not shown/inserted on the machine installed at the petrol pump for dispensing the petrol etc.  The owner of Op No.1 has stressed that generally the scheduled rates have been followed but on this occasion due to his late arrival at the petrol pump revised rate could not be inserted in the machine and as and when this mistake came into his knowledge the same was rectified after cancelling the cash memo issued by the employee of the Op No.1 @ Rs.65.62/- and further new memo was issued to the complainant @ Rs.64.34/-. The owner of the Op No.1 has also regretted on this point to the complainant.

5.                During the course of arguments both the parties were present before the Forum and the owner of Op No.1 the mistake as alleged by the complainant was not intentional rather the same was due to circumstances which were not under the control of the OP No.1 as it had also to follow the instructions of the local police as well as the Association of Petroleum Dealer and also ready to pay the excess charged amount to the complainant but the complainant refused to solve the controversy and prayed for deciding the case on merit.

6.                Perusal of the case file reveals that in the reply of email dated 09.06.2015 (Annexure C7) the OPs have asked the complainant to meet in person in order to sort out the matter mutually but further correspondence taken place between the complainant and OPs reveals that the matter was not sorted out between the parties and the complainant has chosen to take action against the OP No.1 person and refused to resolve the matter.

7.                We have also perused the sale data of 15.08.2015 Annexure R3 wherein it has been mentioned that first sale of petrol after 6 A.M. had been shown at 6.27 A.M. and the amount charged has been shown as Rs.65.62/- per ltre for 15.240 ltr. quantity. Thereafter another sale of petrol has been shown at 6.39 A.M. @ Rs.64.34/- per ltr. After that the whole transactions have been shown that an amount of Rs.64.34/- have been charged for per ltr. petrol without charging any excess amount from the customers therefore, it can be easily held that difference of petrol which could not inserted in the machine was not intentional and bonafide because the Op No.1 had also cancelled the first bill of petrol purchased by the complainant and further fresh provisional bill was issued to the complainant @ Rs.64.34/- per ltr.

8.                The owner of the OP No.1 in his reply has mentioned that he tried his best to resolve the matter but it is strange that the complainant did not satisfy with the same. It is worthwhile to mention here that the Consumer Protection Act is made in order to safeguard the interests of the consumers but it does not give any liberty to the consumer to go beyond this but in the present complaint the mistake/deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant done by Op No.1 cannot be termed as intentional. Moreover, the material available on the case file clearly shows that as and when this mistake came into the notice of Ops same was rectified after regretting on this point to the complainant. In the present case the complainant has failed to prove on the case file that what harm has he suffered from the hands of Op No.1 and on this point OPs drew the attention of this Forum towards Section 95 of IPC which says that Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.

9.                Keeping in view the above discussion as well as the facts and circumstances made above it is clear that the service provider had not adopted any unfair trade practice, therefore, it would be appropriate if we direct the Op No.1 to pay the excess charged amount i.e. Rs.19.50/- to the complainant which is still lying with service provider i.e. OP No.1 with interest @ 12 % per annum from 15.08.2015 till its realization. The Op No.1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. Present complaint is hereby disposed off. Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days from the date of copy of receiving the copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 07.03.2018                                                                                                                       

(ANAMIKA GUPTA)   (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)     (D.N.ARORA)                MEMBER                    MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT