CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.660/2008
SH. MUKESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
8 B TEJ BUILDING
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, ITO
NEW DELHI-110002
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- M/S NATHU MAL AHUJA & SONS
DEALER: HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP. LTD.,
11/3 MATHURA ROAD, BADARPUR,
NEW DELHI-110044
- M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,
J-2/6 B 3RD FLOOR,
RAJOURI GARDEN,
NEW DELHI-110027
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:21.10.2015
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav - President
The case of the complainant is that on 26.3.2008 he was on the way to Agra with his family in his car DL7CE 7362, Maruti Alto LXI model 2006. He went to a petrol filling station of OP-1 to fill up its tank. Maruti Alto LXI had a capacity of 35 litres. At that time there was around 4 litres of petrl in the tank. The attendant was asked to fill the petrol tank. As per the meter reading 36.7 litres of petrol was put in the tank. Still there was gap to fill more petrol in it. It is impossible as the tank has the capacity of 35 litres only. Complainant objected the same but the attendant misbehaved with complainant and his family. When complainant asked for petrol pump manager or owner, both of them were not present. Complainant called up on 100 number, a PCR van came in just 20 minutes. Petrol pump manager came after 40 minutes at around 8.20 AM and he started misbehaving in front of police and told complainant that his petrol pump meter is perfect and if he is found guilty for that he would pay Rs.2 lakh of compensation and close his petrol pump. Complainant has enclosed documentary proof that tank of Maruti Alto Lxi model have a maximum capacity of 35 litres. Complainant has alleged that petrol pump owner is charging extra cost for 6 litres petrol from every car driver whosoever get his petrol tank fully filled up. Complainant has prayed for imposing a penalty of Rs.2 lakh on OP and also for an order to recheck measurement meter of petrol pump.
OP in WS has admitted that complainant had visited petrol pump on 26.3.2008 in a Maturi Alto. He asked the petrol pump attendant to fill 20 litres of petrol and left the petrol pump after paying the requisite cash and did not take the receipt. After one hour the complainant came back to the petrol pump and told the attendant that he has come back to cross check the measurement of the petrol which was filled up earlier. Complainant started shouting and misbehaved. He stated that he was not convinced about the measurement of petrol to be correct and threatened to call the police. The Manager Mr. Pandey intervened and tried to explain the complainant that the measurement of petrol is correct and the same can be verified by doing a sample check. The complainant did not listen and threatened to call the police. The manager asked the complainant to call the police. The Police came after a while. The manager in front of the police and complainant took the sample check which demonstrated that the measurement of petrol pump machine was correct. After seeing this, the complainant was pacified and convinced and the police had left as the matter was amicably resolved.
The complainant then asked the manager to fill up petrol and additional petrol of 16.7 litres was filled up to full the petrol tank. The complainant asked for a receipt and also to provide a receipt of the earlier transaction also. The attendant for administrative convenience, prepared a consolidated receipt of 36.7 litres instead of making two receipts of 20 litres and 16.7 litres.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for complainant and have gone through the written submissions of complainant and OP-1. It is not disputed that complainant visited the petrol pump of OP-1 to get the petrol. Contention of OP is that initially complainant took 20 litres of petrol and then went away and came back after one hour and started arguing with the attendant of the petrol pump regarding the measurement of the petrol pump machine and when the situation turned ugly, Mr. Pandey the manager of the petrol pump intervened to explain the complainant that the measurement of the petrol was correct however the complainant was not ready to listen and thereafter the manager of the petrol pump asked the complainant to call the police. Thereafter the police arrived and the manager in front of the police took the sample check which demonstrated that the measurement of the petrol pump was correct. After seeing this the complaint was pacified. The Police officials left as the matter was amicably settled. Thereafter on the asking of the complainant the attendant for administrative convenience prepared a consolidated receipt of 36.7 litres instead of making two separate receipts.
So as per the reply of OP-1, it is manager of the petrol pump who asked the complaint to call police as the situation was turning ugly and a sample check was done in presence of the police. Complainant was satisfied and on asking of the complainant a consolidated receipt of 36.7 litres was issued.
But Mr. Pandey the manager of OP-1 has nowhere mentioned in his affidavit that sample checking was done in presence of the police. In fact the affidavit of Mr. Pandey is totally contradictory to what is stated in the reply. Mr. Pandey in his reply stated “as situation was taking ugly turn then being the manager he intervened and tried to pacify the complaint who without hearing him called the police” whereas in the reply it is stated that manager asked the complainant to call the police.
Complainant has specifically in his complaint and affidavit stated that when he asked the attendant to call for the manager neither the manager nor owner was present. Manager arrived at the spot after 40 minutes of arrival of police.
We are not at all convinced with the story of the OP that initially the complainant took 20 litres of petrol and left the petrol pump and thereafter came after one hour and created the scene and the police was called and in presence of the police the sample checking was done and then the additional petrol of 16.7 litres was put into the car of the complainant and a consolidated receipt of 36.7 litres was issued.
It is significant to note that in the reply the OP has stated that the in sample checking it was clearly demonstrated that the measurement of the petrol pump was correct and on seeing this complaint pacified and police left as the matter was amicably settled. The complainant then asked the manager to fill petrol and additional petrol of 16.7 litres was fllled up and attendant for administrative convenience prepared a consolidated receipt of 36.7 litres. So as per the reply, the police has left only thereafter the additional petrol of 16.7 litres was taken by the complaint and then for administrative convenience a consolidated receipt was issued. But Mr. Pandey in para-7 of his affidavit stated that police in order to pacify the complainant asked to issue receipt for 36.7 litres instead of issuing two receipts of 20 litres and 16.7 litres. So what is stated in affidavit is totally contradictory to what is stated in reply.
So far as affidavit of Mr Ashish Ahuja, one of th partner of OP-1 is of no significance as he was not present at the time of incident and the facts stated in the affidavit are just hearsay. Mr. Pandey in his affidavit has stated that sample checking was done in front of the complainant and police and the complaint was pacified. So far as the affidavit of Mr. Ashish Ahuja in this regard is concerned, it has no significance as he was not present at the spot.
Coming to the capacity of the petrol tank, Mr. Ashish Ahuja in his affidavit has stated that the quantity of petrol that can actually be filled up is more than the specified capacity. He has placed on record a letter dated 02.7.2001 written by Maruti Udyog Ltd. to one Mr. A. Tandon, HPC Delhi registered office wherein it is stated that “We would like to inform you that though the fuel tank capacity is mentioned a 30 litres, in our owner’s manual, the gasoline is filled in the fuel tank system, which includes the filler hose and the breather circuit. So the quantity of gasoline that can actually be filled is more than the specified capacity Also as per international standards the actual capacity of the tank is more than the specified capacity. This is gasoline that can be filled also depends on the atmospheric temperature at the time of the fill. We recommend you to fill the fuel tank upon 30 litres. If further customer suspects any malpractice at your petrol pump, please recommend him to get his vehicle checked at any of the Maruti Authorized Workshop.”
Complainant has sent an email to Maruti Udyog Ltd. that he want to know fuel tank capacity of his car. He was referred to the authorized dealer of Maruti. Complainant accordingly approached Fairdeal Cars, the authorized dealer of Maruti and they have certified that the actual capacity of the tank of car of the complainant was 35 litres. The complainant has placed on record the documents in respect of his car which shows capacity of petrol tank as 35 litres. The authorized dealer has also certified the same.
The complainant has specifically stated in affidavit that there was already 4 litres petrol and this fact is nowhere denied in the affidavit or reply of Mr. Pandey. We are not convinced as discussed earlier that initially complainant took 20 litres of petrol and thereafter came after one hour and asked to fill another 16.7 litres of petrol and a consolidated receipt was issued for 36.7 litres. The fact is that the OP has failed to prove that Mr. Pandey, Manager, in front of the police and complainant took the sample check which demonstrated that the measurement of petrol pump machine was correct and after seeing this, the complainant was pacified and convinced and the police had left as the matter was amicably resolved.
It is a case where complainant has proved that the petrol pump meter was defective. It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is strange that the police did not take any action though the matter was brought to their notice. The complaint has stated that OP-1 was cheating public at large.
Taking into consideration the entire matter, OP-1 is directed to pay the complainant a compensation of Rs.10,000/- as well Rs.5,000/- for litigation expenses.
A copy of this order be sent to Controller, Weights and Measurement Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi who will direct his office to inspect the petrol pump in question, if it is still in existence, to see whether the petrol pump meter are operating correctly.
Let the order be complied within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
