Date of filing      : 16-04-2013

Date of Disposal : 10-04-2015  

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

           :: NELLORE ::

Friday, this the 10th  day of APRIL, 2015.

          PRESENT:  Sri P.V.Krishna Murthy, B.A., B.L., President

                                      Sri M.Subbarayudu Naidu, Member

                     C.C.No.57/2013

Modem Kotareddy,

Hindu, aged 57 years,

S/o.Radha Krishna Reddy,

1-562/2, Saraswathinagar,

Padugupadu – 524137

Kovur Mandal, Nellore (DT).A.P.                                                   …  Complainant

                      Vs.

Smt.Y.S.Sarada, Dealer,

M/s.Goutam Filling Station,

Indian Oil,

GNT Road,

Padugupadu – 524137

Kovur Mandal, Nellore(Dt).                                                        … Opposite party

This matter coming on 13-02-2015 before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri C.P.Suresh, Advocate for the complainant and  Sri T.Ramakrishna Prasad, Advocate for the opposite party and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

ORDER                                                                                                                                                                                                                          (BY SRI P.V.KRISHNA MURTHY, PRESIDENT)

1.          The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:

    The opposite party is a dealer of petrol.  The complainant purchased petrol for Rs.100/- on 16-03-2013 @ Rs.76-76 Ps.  The government reduced the price of petrol by Rs.2/- from the midnight of 15-03-2013.  As a result, the petrol should have been sold at Rs.74-18Ps instead of Rs.76-76Ps. by the opposite party.  The reduction of the price of the petrol was telecast in different channels and also appeared in the press.  The action of the opposite party in selling at a higher price is a deficiency of service and also negligence.  Hence, the complaint for payment of compensation and costs.  

2.   The brief averments of the counter of the opposite party are as follows:

      The complaint is not maintainable.  The allegations made in the complaint are not correct.  The complainant has not purchased petrol from the opposite party at any time.  The bill filed by the complainant is created and manipulated, due to disputes between the complainant and the opposite party.   The complainant was a dealer of Indian Oil Corporation from 20-03-1989 for a period of 10 years in the same place. He was evicted under the orders of the Hon’ble A.P. High Court in writ.  After eviction of the complainant, the Indian oil corporation handed over the oil filling station to the opposite party and the opposite party is doing business from          18-08-2011 in the same premises. The complaint is a due to grudge against the opposite party. The dealership was granted to the opposite party under the scheduled caste women’s quota.  The complaint is filed to harass her.    Hence the complaint may be dismissed.

3.   Now the point for consideration is “whether the opposite party is committed     

      a deficiency of service?

4.  The complainant filed his affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to  A4.  The opposite party filed her affidavit.  Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

5.    POINT:    The alleged deficiency of service is that the opposite party sold petrol to the complainant at an excessive rate, than what was prescribed by the government.  Admittedly, the government fixed the prices of petroleum and to the  petrol products at that point of time.  The alleged transaction occurred on 16-03-2013 admittedly.  The price of the petrol was Rs.74-18 Ps. from the mid night of 15-03-2013.  However, on the next day, the petrol was sold at Rs.76-76 Ps. to the complainant as found in Exs.A2 and A3.  Ex.A4 is information given to the complainant from the Indian oil corporation ltd. stating that the price of the petrol at Padugupadu, Nellore was Rs.74-16Ps. from the mid-night of 15-03-2013.  This corroborates the newspaper clip (Ex.A1), to the effect that the price of the petrol was Rs.2/- per litre with effect from mid night of 15-3-2013.

6.   The opposite party denied the transaction. However, Exs.A2 and A3, will establish the same.  The above documents, contain the registration of the number of the car, to which petrol was filled.  The opposite parties name, is also found in Exs.A2 and A4.  Therefore, there is no force in the contention of the opposite party that there was no transaction with the complainant, in which petrol was sold to the complainant by the opposite party.  The opposite party attributed the motives to the complainant through the Exs.B1 and B2, Judgment in writ petition and writ appeal filed by the complainant. From them, it could be seen that the complainant was a dealer of the Indian Oil Corporation prior to the opposite party.   However, the opposite party is not a party to the litigation under Exs.B1 and B2.  Even otherwise, motive is not relevant in this case.  The evidence establishes the fact that petrol was sold to the complainant at a rate of higher than the rate prescribed by the government.  Sale of the article in excess of the prescribed price certainly, is a deficiency of service.   Therefore, the opposite party committed a deficiency of service.  The complainant is therefore entitled to refund of the excess of the price of petrol purchased by him on that date, which is rounded to Rs.3/-.  The complainant sought compensation of Rs.50,000/- which under the circumstances of the case is exorbitant. Considering the circumstances of the case, this Forum inclined to pay a compensation of Rs.1,500/- to the complainant along with costs of Rs.1,000/- . The point is held accordingly. 

7.       In the result, the complaint is allowed ordering the opposite party to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.3/- (Rupees three only) along with interest @9%(nine) from the date of the complaint i.e., 16-04-2013 along with compensation of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred only) and costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only).

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 10th day of APRIL, 2015.    

             Sd/-                                                                                                     Sd/-

         MEMBER                                                                                                PRESIDENT

  APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:                    

                                                                             Id/-

                                                                      PRESIDENT

Copies to:

1) Sri C.P.Suresh, Advocate,

    27-5-42, 19^th cross road, Balajinagar,

    Nellore – 524 002.

2) Sri. T.Ramakrishna Prasad,

    Advocate,

    15/805, James Garden,

    Nellore – 524 002.