By Smt. C. S. Sulekha Beevi, President,

1. The grievance of the complainant is that the employee at first opposite party petrol pump negligently filled diesel into the fuel tank of his car instead of filling petrol. It is his say that on 23-01-2008 he approached first opposite party petrol pump for filling petrol in his Maruthi Alto Car KL8/X 3103. After filling the fuel he paid Rs.200/- sitting inside his car. Thereafter when he drove the car for a while, it emitted heavy smoke and the engine misfired with a loud noise. With much difficulty he managed to reach home. The next day he took the car to a workshop from where the ignition plug was replaced three times. But the defect of the car could not be rectified. Then he approached the Maruthi Service Centre from where, after detailed inspection it was detected that diesel has been filled into the fuel tank instead of petrol. Much repair and cleaning of tank etc. had to be done. Complainant states that he incurred expenses and had to suffer much hardship. He alleges deficiency in service against opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

2. Notice issued to first opposite party was returned as unclaimed even though intimation is seen served on 24-3-2008 as per endorsement on the cover. First opposite party remained absent and was set exparte on 17-4-2008.

3. Second opposite party filed version stating that the retail outlet of their petroleum products at Ponmundam which is known as P.K. Fuels is owned and run by dealer Mumtaz and not by first opposite party. That second opposite party has no connection with the person shown as first opposite party in the complaint. It is further submitted that at P.K. Fuels, there are separate points for dispensing diesel and petrol. That the petrol dispensing unit is installed near the sales building almost 15 meters away from the diesel dispensing unit. The driver of the vehicle coming to fill petrol usually parks the car at the required fuel dispensing unit and demands for the quantity of fuel. All the dispensing units carry stickers showing the name 'petrol', or 'diesel'. If the car is parked at the diesel dispensing unit and demanded for diesel, such fuel will be filled int eh fuel tank. That if there was any mistake it is on account of negligence on the part of complainant himself. That complainant is put to strict proof to prove the allegations raised in the complaint. Opposite party denies deficiency in service.

4. Third opposite party was impleaded as per orders in I.A.245/08. Version was filed by third opposite party, proprietor of P.K.Fuels through her power of attorney holder. The defense put forward by third opposite party is that of a blanket denial of the incident alleged in the complaint. Opposite party specifically denied the complainant coming to the petrol pump on 24-01-2008 to fill petrol as alleged in the complaint. It is further submitted that the arrangement and installation of the dispenser units in the pump are separate for diesel and petrol and that they are separately demarcated and written as petrol and diesel. That the cost of petrol and diesel varies widely. The difference in cost per litre would get the attention of the consumer as the quantity of petrol received for Rs.200/- would be very less compared to that of diesel. That the employees at the pump have sufficient experience in dispensing the fuel which is only a manual work and does not require expert training. That the complaint is baseless and that complainant is not entitled to any reliefs.

5. Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by complainant and Exts.A1 to A8 marked for him. Power of attorney holder of third opposite party filed counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.3, Ext.B1 marked for opposite party No.3.

6. Complainant alleges that the employee at opposite party petrol pump negligently filled diesel into the fuel tank of is petrol car, by which the car developed snags and thereby he had to suffer monetary loss and inconveniences.

7. The complaint is resisted by opposite party who has put forward a blanket denial of the whole incident. According to opposite party, the complainant's car has not come to the petrol pump on the alleged day ie., 23-01-2008 for filling any fuel.

8. The onus to prove the fact asserted definitely lies upon the complainant. He has filed proof affidavit restating the averments in complaint. He relies upon Ext.A1 which is purported to be a bill issued by opposite party on 23-01-2008 for filling fuel into his car for Rs.200/-. On perusal of Ext.A1 the date entered in Ext.A1 is not 23-01-2008, but is 26-01-2008. Again, according to complainant due to trouble of the car he had approached a workshop the next day itself from where the ignition plugs were changed three times. Ext.A2 is a bill for purchase of three ignition plugs. But the date in Ext.A2 is not 24-01-2008 but 23-01-2008. Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 documents are totally inconsistent with the case put forward by the complainant in his complaint and affidavit. The complainant's own document does not support his pleadings or affirmations regarding the alleged incident. Complainant does not have a case that opposite party did not issue a bill towards the cost of fuel or that the bill was issued to him later on 26-01-2008 on his request. No explanation is offered by the counsel for complainant regarding the variation in date in Ext.A2 also. These inconsistencies gain importance when opposite party has denied the incident in toto. Opposite party has produced Ext.B11 which is a bill book (carbon copy) maintained for the period 22-01-2008 to 01-02-2008. In Ext.B1 there is no bill seen issued to the complainant's vehicle KL8/X 3103 on 23-01-2008. Ext.B1 would thus support the defense of denial put forward by opposite party. Due to the inconsistency in documents the case of complainant is unconvincing and unacceptable to us. The complainant has been assisted by a lawyer from the beginning of the litigation.

9. Upon the evidence, and materials placed before us we have no hesitation to conclude that complainant has failed to establish the incident put forward by him in the complaint. The complaint does not succeed. We are unable to find opposite parties deficient in service.

10. In the result we dismiss the complaint. No costs.

Dated this 11^th day of December, 2009.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A8

Ext.A1 : Cash bill dated. 26-01-2008 for Rs.200/- in respect of vehicle No.KL8/X 3103.

Ext.A2 : Quotation dated, 23-01-2008 for Rs.180/-

Ext.A3 : Cash bill dated. 24-01-2008 for Rs.250/- in respect of vehicle No.KL8/X 3103.

Ext.A4 : Job Card Retail Cash Memo dated. 24-01-2008.

Ext.A5 : Returned postal cover addressed to first opposite party by

Ext.A6 : Copy of the registered lawyer notice dated, 28-01-2008 from complainant's

counsel to first opposite party.

Ext.A7 : Acknowledgement card from second opposite party to complainant's counsel.

Ext.A8 : Photo copy of the registration certificate in respect of vehicle No.KL8/X 3103

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1

Ext.B1 : Carbon copy of the bill book produced by third opposite party.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER