Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/15/809

Sri. K. Perumal Swamy - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.B. T. Fuel Station and Others - Opp.Party(s)

31 May 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 23.04.2015

                                                      Disposed on: 31.05.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.809/2015

DATED THIS THE 31^st MAY OF 2018

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

Sri.K.Perumal Swamy

(Ex.Army)

S/o late G.Krishnan,

R/at flat no.70, J.C.Nagar,

1^st Main, 4^th cross, Mahalakshmipuram,

Bengaluru-86.

 

By Adv.Sri.Shrikanth.B     

 

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

 

1. S.B.T.Fuel Station,

Nelamangala Junction,

Kunigal Road, NH-4B,

Kasaba - Hobli,

Bengaluru-123.

 

By Adv.Sri.T.Seshagiri Rao & Sunil Rao

 

2. Indian Oil Corporation ltd.,  Corporate office, 3079/3,

JB Tito Marg, Sadiq Nagar,

New Delhi-110049

 

3. Indian Oil Corporation ltd.,   Corporate office,

Indian Oil Bhavan, #29, P.Kalingrao Road (Mission Road), Bengaluru-27.

 

By Adv.Sri.A.K.Lakshmanan

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party no.1, 2 & 3 (herein after referred as Op.no.1, 2 & 3 or Ops) seeking issuance of direction against Op.no.1 to pay Rs.43,000/- towards repair charges and a sum of Rs.2,450.80 towards the fuel charges. Further direct it to pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages and to grant such other reliefs deem fit for which the Complainant is entitled to.

 

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that, he is the owner of Toyoto Innova bearing no.KA01 B5748. It is the case of the Complainant that, while travelling through NH-48 as a customer the driver of the said vehicle has filled with diesel for a sum of Rs.2,450.08 in Op.no.1 fuel station. After filling with the diesel in Op.no.1, the family members have started their travel again and after travelling 10 kms the said vehicle stopped automatically and were the driver of the vehicle has find blinking indication in fuel indication meter, after that the driver has called the Complainant and complained about the same, thereafter, the Complainant has called over to Ravindu Toyoto helpline and as per the instruction of the expert of Ravindu Toyoto service center, the Complainant has given some instructions to his driver regarding some cleaning of fuel filter and as he had cleaned fuel filter and proceeded their travel again, but after 6 kms, the vehicle had stopped again for the same reason, the driver of the vehicle has cleaned fuel filter for 5 times even then the vehicle was not run properly and as they are able to travel upto Yediyur. Further in garage, at Yediyur the driver of the vehicle have cleaned entire fuel system, even then the fuel contain some water, immediately after to complained about the adulteration of fuel, the Complainant has called Op.no.1 and complained about the adulteration of fuel, but Op.no.1 have not response properly, inturn the Op.no.1 has blamed him only on adulteration of fuel. Though negligence on the part of Op.no.1, the Complainant has called over the IOC/concerned persons on 29.12.14 in their phone numbers and complained about the adulteration of fuel in the Op.no.1 fuel station, even then the IOC/Op.no.1 & 2 have not taken any action nor they have given reply to the Complainant in respect of the complaint about the adulteration of fuel at Op.no.1’s fuel station. The Complainant further submits that, without any alternative, he had get repaired the vehicle by changing 3 fuel injectors in the vehicle and spent a sum of Rs.43,000/-. Even after persistent efforts by the Complainant, Op.no.1 have not returned the full amount of Rs.43,000/- for which the Complainant had spent in repairing said vehicle and a sum of Rs.2,450.80 for which the Complainant has filled the fuel with Op.no.1. Towards the adulteration of fuel, the Complainant has registered the complaint before the jurisdictional police, without holding the proper enquiry, they have issued endorsement stating, the Complainant may approach before the consumer forum for seeking relief. The Complainant further submits that, he has given fuel sample for testing to the Bengaluru Analytical Research center Pvt. ltd., (BARC). They tested the fuel and has given the report stating that, the fuel contained 20.07% of water. In this context, he issued legal notice dtd.16.01.15 but Op.no.1 issued the evasive reply. Hence prays to allow the complaint.

 

3. On receipt of the notice, Op.no.1, 2 & 3 did appear through their counsel, among them Op.no.2 & 3 filed version denying the contents of the complaint. The sum and substance of the version of the Op.no.2 & 3 are that, it is the grievance of the Complainant that, after filling up the diesel with Op.no.1, the said vehicle started giving some problem while travelling.  It is accepted that vehicle was filled diesel with Op.no.1 but denied that there was water contamination in the fuel. The test report of BARC produced by the Complainant is a got up document for the purpose of this case to make illegal gains by the Complainant. Ops further submit that, the Complainant had called the Area Manager (retail sales) of Op.no.2 & 3 on 29.12.14 and other OIC officials to complain about water in diesel at Op.no.1 station. The said Area Manager immediately rushed to the spot and checked the water dip. The observations were as under:

a) He personally checked the water dip in all the tanks. There was no water found in any of the tanks.

b) It was also noticed through automation system that there were 70-80 vehicles that had fuelled the product from Op.no.1 on 29.12.14. However, no other vehicle had complained about water in diesel.

c) This was communicated to the Complainant vide phone on 29.12.14. He had also requested the Complainant to visit the Op.no.1/retail outlet and check the tanks for water presence. However, citing his busy commitment, the Complainant did not go over to the retail outlet.

d) He drew sample from the retail outlet and the same was sent for test in their NABL certified laboratory

e) In the meantime, the Complainant had approached jurisdictional police station and had lodged a complaint on 01.01.15

f) The samples drawn by the Area Manager had passed the test and copy of it sent to jurisdictional police station through Op.no.1 dealer on 05.01.15.

g) Action taken on the part o OIC was communicated to the Complainant vide telephone calls and email on 31.12.14.

h) Thus IOCL had responded to the Complainant and had tried its best to resolve the complaint. Further due opportunity was given to the Complainant to prove his complaint.

 

Hence on these grounds and other grounds prays for dismissal of the complaint.

         

          4. The Complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and produced 10 documents. The Chief Divisional Retail Sales manager of Op.no.2 & 3 filed affidavit evidence and produced 3 documents.  Complainant and Op.no.2 & 3 filed written arguments. Heard both side.

  

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the Complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of Ops, if so, whether he entitled for the relief sought for ?    
2. What order ?

                   

           

 

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point no.1: In the Negative.  

Point no.2: As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

 

          7. Point no.1:  We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as the version filed by the Op.no.2 & 3.  The main grievance of the Complainant is that, at the time of filling the diesel in the Op.no.1 fuel station, the diesel was mixed with water. In this context, the said vehicle got struck and did not move. As to know, whether, the said diesel was mixed with water at the time of filling in the Op.no.1 station, the sample of the said diesel from Op.no.1 has been collected by Op.no.2 & 3 and sent it to the chemical examination. After examining the same, the test reports have been furnished which is found at document no.2 produced by Op.no.2 & 3, wherein it is specifically stated that there is no water in any of the tanks. It was also noticed that, there were 70-80 vehicles that had fuelled the product from Op.no.1 retail outlet between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. on 29.12.14. However, no other vehicle had complained about water in diesel. This fact is not denied by the Complainant. Further on going through the endorsement dtd.06.01.15 issued by jurisdictional police of Nelamangala to the Complainant, wherein the relevant portion reads thus:

 

»A§gÀºÀ

¢£ÁAPÀ 01.01.15gÀAzÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ eÉ.¹.£ÀUÀgÀ ªÁ¹AiÀiÁzÀ PÉ.¥ÉgÀĪÀiÁ¼ï¸Áé«Ä ¤ÃªÀÅ ¤ÃrzÀ °TvÀ zÀÆj£À£ÀéAiÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä oÁuÉAiÀÄ J£ï.¹.Dgï.£ÀA.1/2015gÀ°è £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ PÉÆlÖ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. CAzÀgÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ PÉJ01 ©5748 lAiÉÆÃl E£ÉÆêÀ PÁjUÉ £É®ªÀÄAUÀ®zÀ §½AiÀÄ J£ï.ºÉZï.48gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è£À ¸ÀA¥Àvï J ¨Á§ÄgÀªÀgÀ §APï£À°è ¢:29.12.14 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ 11.13J.JA UÀAmÉAiÀÄ°è gÀ¹Ãw ¸ÀASÉå 300641146gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ 44.62 °Ãlgï rÃ¸É¯ï ºÁQ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ PÀÄtÂUÀ¯ï §½ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ ¤ªÀÄä ªÁºÀ£À PÉlÄÖ ¤AwzÀÄÝ EzÀgÀ §UÉÎ rÃ¸É¯ï §APï£À°è ¤ÃgÀÄ ¨ÉgɹzÁÝgÉAvÀ L.N.¹.J¯ï gÀªÀgÀ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ ¤ÃªÉà ¨Á¬Ä ªÀiÁw£À°è ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁrzÀÝjAzÀ LN¹J¯ï PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ¸Éïïì D¦üøÀgï vÀPÀët §AzÀÄ ¸ÀA¥ÀvïgÀªÀgÀ §APï£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¥ÉmÉÆæÃ¯ï §APï£À°è ±ÉÃRj¹gÀĪÀ røɯï£ÀÄß ªÁlgï mɸïÖ ªÀiÁr RÄzÁÝV ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÉmÉÆæÃ¯ï §APï£À°è ®¨sÀå«gÀĪÀ røɯï£À°è ¤ÃgÀÄ «Ä±ÀætªÁV®èªÉAzÀÄ SÁvÀj ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄÄA¢£À LN¹J¯ï ¯Áå¨ï£À°è ¥ÀjÃQë¸À®Ä ¢:27.12.14 & 29.12.14gÀ JgÀqÀÄ ¢£ÀzÀ rÃ¸É¯ï ¸ÁåA¥À¯ï£ÀÄß CAzÀgÉ ¹Ã¯ï £ÀA.836491 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 836443 836541 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 836412 ºÁUÀÆ PÉÆAqÀAvÀ røɯï E£ïªÁAiÀiïì £ÀA.675469390 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 675786719gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ ¢:05.01.15gÀAzÀÄ LM¹J¯ï zÉêÀ£ÀUÀÄA¢ ¥ÀæAiÉÆÃUÁ®AiÀÄ¢ªÀÄzÀ røɯïUÉ ¤ÃgÀÄ ¨ÉgÀPÉAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

DzÀÝjAzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ EzÀgÀ §UÉÎ LM¹J¯ï PÀA¥À¤UÉ ºÉÆÃV §UɺÀj¹PÉƼÀîvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ CxÀªÁ UÁæºÀPÀgÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ºÉÆÃV §UɺÀj¹PÉƼÀîvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.

 

8. If the above endorsement is strictly construed, one thing is clear that, on the relevant date and time, no water was mixed in diesel. So the test report as well as endorsement issued by the said police goes against the claim of the Complainant. When such being the fact, we do not find any merits in this complaint. In this context, the complaint liable to be dismiss devoid of any merits. Accordingly we answered the point no.1 in the negative.

 

         9. Point no.2: In the result, we passed the following:

 

 

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed devoid of any merits.

 

          2. Looking to the circumstances of the case, we direct both the parties to bear their own cost.   

 

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 31^st May 2018).

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.K.Perumal Swamy, who being the complainant was examined. 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Doc.no.1	Fuel/diesel bill dtd.29.12.14
Doc.no.2	Itemized call list of the Complainant
Doc.no.3	Original bill of fuel injectors
Doc.no.4	Police complaint acknowledgement
Doc.no.5	Police endorsement dtd.06.01.15
Doc.no.6	Original BARC analysis report of diesel
Doc.no.7	Legal notice dtd.16.01.15
Doc.no.8 & 9	Postal receipts and postal acknowledgements
Doc.no.10	Reply notice of Op.no.1 dtd.27.01.15

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s Respondent/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.R.Kartik, who being the Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager of Op.no.2 & 3 was examined.

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party no.2 & 3

 

Doc.no.1	Dealership agreement dtd.08.05.12
Doc.no.2	Test report of OIC Devangunthi Terminal Laboratory
Doc.no.3	Email dtd.31.12.14

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT