DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C.NO.35 OF 2017
Present: Sri Rabindranath Mishra - President.
Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattanaik - Member .
Sri Purna Chandra Tripathy - Member .
Sri Balaji Senapati, aged -31 years.
S/O: Laxmi Narayan Senapati At/PO: Contactorpada,Phulbani
PO/Dist:Town Phulbani , Kandhamal ……………………….. Complainant.
Versus.
1. Proprietor of Baba Amaranath Filling Station
(H.P.C.L) Retail outlets At/PO: Madhiapali,
N.H-26, SBP Road. PS/Dist: Bolangir
2. TATA motors
Regd Office At: Bombary House 24,
Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai,
Maharashtra Pin- 400001 …………………………….. OPP. Parties.
For the Complainant: Self.
For the OPP. Parties: For the O.P No.1: Self.
For the O.P No. 2: Mr. Saroj Kumar Mohanty, Advocate
Date of Order: 20-01-2018
O R D E R
The case of the Complainant in brief is that he is the owner of a Car (Tiago) bearing Engine No.REVTRNO2GSYK42287. The O.P No.1 is the distributor of the HPCL and O. P No.2 who sell the Tata Motors throughout the India. On 09-09-2017 the Complainant had gone to Bolangir with his family members for personal visit. On the same day he went to O.P No.1 for filling up petrol in his vehicle. The worker of the O.P filled up petrol and fill up the tank by 39.81 liters. The Complainant had more than 5 liters of petrol in the tank prior to filling of the petrol. As per manufacturer’s manual the capacity of the tank is 35 liters. On his approach the sales man was threatening him and demanded payment for 39.81 liters.Due to fear the Complainant paid Rs. 2787.49 ps through debit card of ICICI Bank and get a money receipt from him. Then he returned to Phulbani and contacted the O.P No.2 through Toll free number and the O.P No.2 confirmed that the Capacity of
-2-
the Tiago Car tank is 35 liters. So, the O.P No.1 adopted unfair trade practice in order to get more profit. Accordingly this complaint was filed by him for a direction to the O.P No.1 to refund the excess payment received from the complainant along with Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000 towards cost of litigation.
The case of the O. P No.1 as per his version is that he has no idea about the capacity of the tank in a Tiago Car. However every motor vehicle fitted with petrol /diesel engine has extra space to accommodate gas emission. During the course of summer or during the running of the vehicle when heat will generate, there will be no space for accommodating the generated gas which will result in explosion of the tank. Therefore the manufacturer always provides extra space to accommodate gas emission generated while driving .Hence, there is no defect as it showed that 39.81 liters of fuel was put in to the vehicle. The fuel meter of the O.P No.1 as well as other fuel outlets are always inspected and sealed by the Department of Weight and Measure of the Government of Odisha together with the competent authority of the HPCL.Being a retailer , the O.P No.1 has absolutely no control over the working of a fuel meter .The O.P No.1 has never cheated any customer to get more profit .
The further case of the O.P No.1 is that the Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case as both parties are residing outside of the jurisdiction of the honorable forum.
The case of the O.P No.2 as per his version is that the car and vehicle manufactured at the plant of O.P No2 are sold through various dealers appointed on a “Principal to Principal” basis. The Complainant did not disclose the details of the TATA Tiago Car purchased by him .The Complainant is not a Consumer as there is neither any manufacturing defect alleged in the Vehicle nor any deficiency in service being established against the O.P No.2. The Complainant has not asked for any relief from O.P No.2 and the issue in question does not relate to O.P No.2 for which the O.P No.2 is not a necessary party in the complaint. The question which comes up in the mind of the Complainant is as to how 39.81 liters of petrol filled up in the fuel tank which has the capacity of 35 liters at which already contained more than 5 liters of petrol. It is correct that the capacity of fuel tank of the TATA Tiago vehicle is 35 liters and the same is stated in the technical information provided in the Owner’s manual of the car in question. The copy of the technical information as to capacity of the fuel tank was annexed herewith marked as Annexure A”. In case of discrepancy in quantity of petrol dispensed the issue comes within the purview of the legal metrology laws. The HPCL is only competent to confirm as to whether the dispenser of the petrol Pump of the OP No.1 has rightly pumped 39.81 liters of petrol or not . So, the O.P No.2 is not a necessary party in the instant complaint application and for that the O.P No.2 should be expunged from the instant complaint application.
The further case of O.P No.2 is that the O.P No.2 being situated outside the jurisdiction of the learned Forum the name of O.P No.2 be deleted from the cause title.
-3-
We have heard the Complainant, the O.P No.1 and the learned counsel of O.P No.2.We have gone through the complaint petition, the version filed by the O.P No.1 and the O.P No.2 separately and the documents filed by both the parties in support of their case. It is submitted by the Complainant that 39.81 liters of petrol cannot be filled up in the fuel tank which has a capacity of 35 liters and which already contained more than 5 liters of petrol. It is submitted by the learned counsel of the O.P No.2 that the fuel tank capacity of the Tiago car is 35 liters but it does not mean that it cannot hold more than 35 liters of petrol. The HPCL is only the competent to confirm as to whether the dispensed of the petrol pump of the O.P No.1 rightly pumped 39.81 liters of petrol or not. The discrepancy in quantity of the petrol dispensed is the issue comes within preview of the legal metrology laws. It is submitted by O.P no.1 that the vehicles manufacturer always provides extra space to accommodate gas emission generated while driving. During the course of summer or during running of the vehicle when heat will generate there will be no space for accommodating the generated gas which will result in explosion of the tank.
Admittedly the HPCL and the legal metrology Department are not parties of this case. Neither the Complainant nor the O.Ps adduced any clear evidence to strengthen their stands. So, it cannot be said that the O.Ps committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice due to want of cogent evidence.
Both the O.Ps raised that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case .In this case the cause of action arose at Bolangir which is outside the jurisdiction of this District Forum. As per section 11(2) (b) “any of the Opposite Parties , where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or(carries on business or has a branch office ), or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the Opposite Parties who do not reside , or ( carry on business or have a branch office ), or personally work for gain, as the case may be , acquiesce in such institution”.
It is submitted by the Complainant that the O.P no.2 who sell the TATA motors throughout the India. If it is admitted that the O.P No.2 caries on business at Kandhamal, the permission of the District forum should be obtained by the Complainant but the said requirement is not fulfilled as per law. As the requirement of section 11 is not fulfilled by the Complainant, this complaint has no merit and the same is filed out of jurisdiction. Hence, this complaint is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps but without any cost.
The C.C is disposed off. Supply free copies of this order to both the parties at an early date.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
