IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 5th day of November 2009 CC.143/2007 P.K.Rajeevan, Madurima, Kunnav, Complainant P.O.Chirakkal. (Rep. by Adv.M.Kishore kumar) 1. Proprietor, M.C.Fuels, Dealer, Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Opposite parties Pilathara. (Rep. byAdv.K.V.Abdul Razack) 2.Bharath Petroleum Corporation, Kannur. (Rep. byAdv.K.V.Abdul Razack) O R D E R Sri.K.Gopalan, President This is a complaint filed under sectin12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposites parties to pay a total sum of Rs.1,09,450/- as compensation and cost. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: Complainant is the owner of the vehicle KL.13K/8121. He used to ply the car as taxi as self employment for his livelihood. On 18.6.07 he filled diesel for Rs.500/- in his vehicle from the 1st opposite party at Pilathara. The vehicle showed some missing while starting the vehicle on the very next day. The working condition of the engine became trouble some and the vehicle could not be used for running. The vehicle was taken to ESSCO Service centre, Kannur for repair. The mechanic of the centre told the complainant that the diesel filled in the car was mixed with water and this water entered in the fuel pump that caused to create the trouble to vehicle. So that fuel pump was sent to Calicut for repair and the diesel tank was cleaned. It took three days. The vehicle had been kept for all these three days in the garage of the service centre. More over, complainant spent Rs.5000/- for the repair. The filling of diesel to his vehicle was from the 1st opposite party’s pump and this was diesel mixed with water. It is because of this reason he lost this three days income Rs.1500/- per day and Rs.5000/- as repair charges. Lawyer notice was sent on 22.6.07 opposite party received the notice but did not reply. Complainant suffered much mental agony for which he is entitled for an amount of 1 lakh apart from repair charge and loss of income. Hence this complaint. Pursuant to the notice 1st opposite party entered appearance and filed version. 2nd opposite party did not take care to appear or to file version. 2nd opposite party subsequently called absent and set exparte. The contentions raised by opposite party in his version in brief are as follows: the opposite party is unaware of the fact that complainant has been using his car as taxi for his livelihood. It is true that High speed Diesel for Rs.500/- filled in KL.13/K.8121 on 18.6.07. But it is denied that the next day the engine of the car became defective and the car has been taken to the ESSCO Service centre. The opposite party is not aware of what mechanic has told to complainant with respect to the defect of fuel pump. All those things of repair of fuel pump expense of Rs.5000/- for repair etc. need not be known to opposite party. The pipe to fuel pump is connected at the bottom of the Diesel tank. If water was mixed with the diesel the vehicle would not have run more than 2 KM. The density of water is more than that of diesel. The pipe of the delivery unit is fixed 18.2cm high above the lower level from the high speed diesel tank of the opposite party’s pump. At about 900 liters of diesel will be continuously under stock in the diesel tank. Opposite party is running the pump in accordance with the rules and restrictions of 2nd opposite party Bharath Petroleum. The materials supplied by company would be sold as per the direction of the company. Diesel and petrol supplied by company alone are sold from the pump. More over, it is a usual practice to conduct density test in almost all days. The High speed Diesel stock in the pump on 18.6.07 morning was 6064ltr. On the same day there was a sale of 923 ltr. of High Speed Diesel. Any other owners or drivers of the vehicle made any complaint same as that of this. This opposite party has replied the lawyer notice sent by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence to dismiss the complaint. On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any remedy? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence consists of PW1, PW2, DW1, and Exts.A1 to A4 and Exts.B1 to B4. Issue Nos. 1 to 3 Admittedly KL.13.K.8121 vehicle filled High Speed Diesel for Rs.500/- on 18.6.07 from the opposite party’s pump. The complainant’s case is that the diesel was mixed with water and thereby his vehicle became damaged. Complainant suffered economic loss and mental agony. Opposite party contended that opposite party is selling the diesel and petrol supplied by Bharath Petroleum only and strictly as per the rules and restriction of the company. Opposite party further contended that the density of water is higher than that of diesel and if there is water in the tank that will remain in the bottom of the tank and there is no chance of water to enter the pipe of the delivery unit. He also contended that if there is water mixed in the diesel, the vehicle would not have run more than two kilometers. Both parties filed proof affidavit in tune with their pleadings. Complainant’s case is that he is the owner of the vehicle KL.13K.8121, but he has not produced any document to show that he is the owner of the said vehicle. He deposed in cross examination that: RC Fsâ ssIh-iap-v. lmP-cm-¡p-¶-Xn\p _p²n-ap-«p-v. Ct¸mÄ-D-S-a-Ø-\-Ã.-Hcp hÀj-T-ap³]mWv hnä-Xv. 18.6.2007 \p Rm³ DS-avØ-\m-bn-cp¶p F¶p ImWn-¡m³ RTO Office \n¶p tcJ-IÄ hcp-¯p-¶-Xn\p _p²n-ap-«n-Ã. . . . . . . .KL.13 K/8221 hml-\-¯nsâ DS-a-س Rm\m-bn-cp-¶nà F¶p ]d-ªm icn-bà . Complainant has not cared to produce documents to prove his ownership even after it was challenged. It has come in evidence that he is not the owner of the vehicle at present but no evidence adduced to show that he was the owner of the vehicle on 18.6.07, the day when the alleged mixed diesel was filled. Ext.T1 proves that KL.13.K.8121 filled diesel for Rs.500/- on 18.6.07. But it does not prove that the complainant was the owner of the vehicle. The burden lies on the shoulders of complainant to prove that he is the owner of the vehicle, which he failed to do. The complainant has not adduced evidence to prove the running history of vehicle on 18.6.07. Opposite party has the case that if the diesel was mixed with the diesel the vehicle would not have run more than 2 km. In the absence of Lab tested report of the purity of diesel the contention raised by the opposite party cannot straight away be ignored. The relevancy of running distance of the vehicle on the day 18.6.07 also cannot be ignoring. Complainant can easily prove it by simply producing the trip sheet. The allegation of the complainant is that the vehicle showed some missing while starting the vehicle on the very next day. What happened on the very same day of filling the diesel? How may kms it has run after filling the diesel on the same day 18.6.07. It can be seen that there was no complaint for the vehicle on the day when the diesel was filled. The complaint shown on the next day 19.6.07 and the vehicle seen kept in the work shop on 20.6.07. Nothing has stated about the business of 18.6.07 except the filling diesel. If there is no complaint for the vehicle on the day of filling the diesel it is difficult to come in to conclusion that the diesel was mixed with water and there by damaged the alleged vehicle without cogent supporting evidence. Complainant has evidence in his hand to prove how many kms has the vehicle run on the day of filling the diesel.. The alleged vehicle has run on that day but it is not explained what prevented him from producing such documents trip sheet etc. PW2 in his cross examination deposed that “ shÅ-hpT Uok-epT X½n ebn-¡p-I-bn-Ã. In chief examination what he stated is “Diesel tank  shÅ-hpT diesel DT mix Bb-Xp-sIm-mWv missing A\p-`-h-s¸-«Xp. This statement seems to be quite contrary to each other. Even if he is a mechanic it is not clear how far he is competent to say about the technical aspect of the subject matter, since his qualification is not proved. Complainant stated in the complaint that he has sent Ext.A2 notice. The acknowledgement proves that the notice has been sent. But his allegation that it has not been replied is untrue. Ext.B1, B 2 and B3 proves that opposite party has sent the reply notice. There was no question on that aspect in the cross examination. In the reply notice he contended that he does not know whether the above mentioned vehicle belonged to complainant. He has also contended that if there is water in the tank it will always remain in the bottom of the tank and there is no room for the water entering into the pipe of the delivery unit. Hence burden remains to the shoulders of complainant to prove his case. Complainant has admitted in cross that “ shffT Xmsg-bm-Wp-m-hpI F¶-dn-bmT “. Then he has to prove that there is room for the water entering into the pipe of the delivery unit even if water remains in the bottom of the tank. On going through the evidence and perusal of entire documents on record it is difficult to come into conclusion that the complainant is succeeded in proving his case. Hence the issues 1 to 3 are found against complainant. In the result, complaint is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Cash bill dt.18.6.07 issued by OP1 A2.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP A3.Postal AD A4.Certificate dt.24.6.07 issued by ESSCO Automobiles Exhibits for the opposite parties B1.Copy of the reply notice sent to complainant B2 and 3.Postal receipt and AD card B4.Copy of the register maintained by OP1. (1 page) Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant PW2.C.Dilipkumar Witness examined for the opposite party DW1.K.P.Muhammadali /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.
......................GOPALAN.K
......................JESSY.M.D
......................PREETHAKUMARI.K.P | | 
