C.F. CASE No. : CC/09/77
COMPLAINANT : Paresh Chandra Dutta
S/o Late Sudhangshu Dutta
Vill. Chunaripara Lane,
P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali
Dist. Nadia.
OPPOSITE PARTY/OP : Proprietor Laxmi Narayan Service
Station (Petrol Pump)
Vill. Boubazar, D.L. Roy Road,
P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia.
PRESENT : KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY MEMBER
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 26th March, 2010
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is the owner of a Tata Indica V2. On 28.08.09, he went to the petrol pump of the OP in order to purchase diesel oil as fuel of the motor car and he was accompanied by one Mintu. As per his instruction, the employee of the OP supplied diesel to him containing 40.67 litters at a price of Rs. 1436.05. He then told the employee of the OP that the capacity of his tanker was 37 litters while the OP told that 40.67 litter diesel was given to him which is not a correct one. The complainant also submits that as per Company Owner’s Manual & Service Book issued by Tata Co., the tank has the capacity to intake 37 litters of diesel and not 40 litters. So it is clear that the OP dishonestly took price of excess 2/3 litters of diesel. So it is unfair trade practice on the side of the OP and hence, the case is filed against him.
The OP has filed a written version in this case, inter alia, stating that this OP sold 40.7 litters of diesel to the complainant for his vehicle No. WB 24K 2407 on 28.08.09 at a total price of Rs. 1436.05. He also submits that the oil company developed this system and installed the computerized delivery meter unit for giving or supplying service to the customer on the basis of the computerized reading with showing open eyes. Very recently on 11.09.09 the oil company checked and verified and tested the filling stations and thereafter gave a report to that effect issuing the certificate as “nozzle delivery checked in 5 litter measured and found OK.” Besides this, the office of the Controller of Legal Metrology Department, Govt. of West Bengal checked and verified the filling station on 25.06.09 and issued a valid fit certificate which is valid upto 25.10.2010. So no question of supplying less quantity of diesel to the complainant does arise on his part as the same is supplied through electronic meterised system. Therefore, the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against him.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of complaint along with annexed documents and the written version filed by the OP and after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for both parties it is the admitted case of both the parties that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle, Tata Indica V2, bearing No. WB 24K 2407. It is also available on record that he purchased diesel oil from the OP’s petrol pump on 28.08.09. His specific case is that the capacity of the fuel tank of his vehicle is 37 liters, but the OP took price 40.67 litters of diesel, the price of which is Rs. 1436.05 vide 'Annexure – 1’. On this point the OP submits that his electronic meter shows that the above said 40.67 litters of diesel was supplied to the complainant and he has also argued that the meter reading is correct. 'Annexure – A’ issued by the department of Legal Metrology which examined this meter on 25.06.09 and found it OK also. The disputed diesel was purchased by the complainant on 28.08.09 and on that date it was supplied by the OP. But the OP is silent on this point how 40.67 litters of diesel can be kept in the fuel tank of the complainant’s vehicle, the capacity of which is 37.6 litters as per item No. 9 of important information given in the Owner’s Manual Service Book by TATA Motors. On examining this manual along with the 'Annexure – A’ our considered view is that in no way a fuel tank can contain more than 37 litters of diesel which has the technical capacity to that extant only. We do also hold that in no way 40.67 litters of diesel oil can be kept in that fuel tank of the complainant’s vehicle. There is certainly a mistake committed by the OP men at the time of delivery of diesel to the complainant and accordingly, due to that fault the meter reading was not 37 litters rather it was 40.67 litters.
Therefore, in view of our above discussions and considering the fact of this case, we do also hold that the allegation ‘unfair trade practice’ as stated by the complainant cannot be ruled out. Rather we hold that there is no satisfactory evidence as adduced by the OP to that extent that the fuel tank of the vehicle has the capacity to take 40.67 litters of diesel. So our considered view is that the allegation made by the complainant against the OP is well established regarding adoption of unfair trade practice by him. Considering the nature of this case the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 141/- as price of excess diesel along with compensation of Rs. 1,000/- + litigation cost of Rs. 500/-, in total Rs. 1641/-. In result the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/09/77 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP. The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 1641/- which the OP is directed to pay the complainant within a period of two months since this date of passing this judgment, in default, the decretal amount will accrue interest @ 9% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
