SRI A. K. BHATTACHARYYA
The present case has been filed by the complainant stating that the complainant being a Medical Officer of Tamluk Red Cross Society was returning on 24/04/2014 at night from his chamber namely M/s Rampada Maity Health Care at Panskura by riding on his own car bearing no. WB-30N-2395 (Chevrolet Beat LS) and then purchased 8 lit 390 CC diesel for Rs. 500/- from OP no. 1. After refilling of the said diesel the said car did not move. Due to this problem the complainant called local mechanics but the said mechanics could not start the engine of the said car. Then the complainant informed the servicing centre of his car namely Priti Motor Udyog Pvt. Ltd. The said car was shifted to Priti Motor Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Howrah by Zirvan of Best Break Down Service in lieu of payment. According to the said service centre the diesel which was purchased from OP no. 1 was adulterated with water and for such adulteration the engine of the complainant-s car was damaged. The complainant paid a certain amount to said service centre for repairing of his car. The complainant met the OP no. 1 and having shown all reports and bills to the OP no. 1, demanded the amount which need to be paid by the complainant to the service centre for repairing the said car, but the OP no. 1 had refused to pay the said cost. The complainant lodged a complaint before Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Tamluk against OP no. 1 and also informed the OP no. 2 and OP no. 3 about the entire matter, but OPs did not pay any heed to his complaint. Hence, the instant case has been filed by the complainant against the OPs for relief.
The OP no. 1 has appeared in this case by filing W/V along with some photocopies of documents as also W/N/A and denied all material allegations made against him by the complainant. The OP no. 1 has stated that the complainant, being a doctor and having a private chamber namely M/s Rampada Maity Health Care situated in the close distance of the fuel pump of OPs, used to park his car just in the pathway obstructing the approach road of the fuel pumps on several occasions on his chamber-s dates. For the very reason the deliveryman of OP no. 1 protested and a hot talk occurred between the driver and deliveryman, then, the complainant threatened to take revenge by using his power and connections. The OP no. 1 strongly denied the complaint, allegations made against him by the petitioner. According to OP no. 1 the complainant never purchased any diesel from OP no. 1 on 24-04-2014. The Op no. 1 also stated that the adulteration or mixing of water with the diesel in his pump never happened.
The OP no. 1 further stated that the cash memo which has been filed by the complainant is completely forged as the cash memo has not shown the details of the said vehicle, which is the business conversion and system of selling petroleum products. No complaint has been lodged in the Complaint and Suggestion Book by any vehicle owner including different types of vehicles regarding the petroleum product of OP no. 1 since the commencement of the said business till date. According to OP no. 1, none except the complainant, has never complained and made any allegation regarding the diesel of the OP no. 1. The complainant has not produced a single document which can prove the adulteration or mixing of water in the diesel of OP no. 1 in the fuel tank of OP no. 1-s petrol pump. The OP no. 1 also stated that the complainant did not send the sample for testing to the lab of OP no. 2 and OP no. 3. The complainant could do it easily, but did not proceed to the system only to fulfil his personal conflict against OP no. 1.
The OP no. 2 has appeared in this case by filing W/V along with annexures R and R.2 wherein it was stated that in spite of existence of a complaint and suggestion book in the Retail Outlet/Petrol Pump for the convenience of the customers, no entry had been made on 24/4/2014 in the said book by the complainant regarding the said complaint. According to OP no. 2 the complainant has not made use of equipment for testing the quality of the product of petrol pump in spite of existing equipment in the OP no. 1-s petrol pump. The OP no.2 has declared that he had inquired into the said alleged incident and submitted a report to Asst. Director, Consumer and Fair Business Practices on 11/07/2014 wherein it has been mentioned that the Cash memo filed by the complainant in their case does not contain the name of the Retail Outlet/Petrol Pump from which the product was purchased and the vehicle number. In the said report it has also been stated that from an enquiry upon the matter it was found that there was no water in the diesel tank on the particular date.
The OP no. 3 though appeared through its lawyer but ultimately did not contest the instant case for which this case was heard ex-parte against it.
The complainant, OP nos. 1 and 2 have filed W/N/A separately on record.
The complainant has filed some documents on record as per list dated 29/08/2014 including Cash memo dt. 24/04/2014, Bill of Best Break Down Service in the name of the complainant dt. 24-04-2014, repairing order with bills and order of Assistant Director, CA&FBP, Purba Medinipur passed on 06-05-2014.
Points for discussion
- Whether there is any activity for selling adulterated diesel with mixed water to customer/complainant by the OP no. 1 as complained of?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as sought for?
Decision with reasons
Point nos. 1 & 2:
Both the above two points are taken up together for consideration.
Heard the ld. Advocates for the complainant and OP nos. 1 and 2 at length over the final hearing of the instant case.
We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the complainant and Op no. 1 supported by affidavit, as also the pleadings of the OP no. 2 supported by verification including the documents and annexures filed/produced on record.
It is the contention of the complainant that he bought 8 ltrs. 390 cc diesel from OP no. 1 after paying a sum of Rs. 500/- on 24-04-2014. However, after refilling his vehicle bearing no. WB-30N-2395 with the said diesel when he tried to start the vehicle, it was observed that the vehicle was not moving. So he called up a local mechanic to look into the problem. However, when his efforts proved futile, finding no other alternative, the complainant sent the vehicle to a car servicing centre namely -Priti Motor Udyog Pvt. Ltd.- On checking the vehicle, the service centre mechanic opined that the problem occurred due to use of adulterated diesel with water. Therefore, he got the vehicle repaired through the service centre for which he had to incur some expenses. It is the further case of the complainant that when he demanded the repairing cost from OP no. 1 who sold such adulterated diesel causing damage to the engine of the vehicle, they refused to entertain his claim.
On the other hand, the OP no. 1 and OP no. 2 have denied the entire allegations made against them by the complainant by submitting their respective written version and W/N/A including documents on record.
Now let us see what material/materials is/are produced by the complainant on record to substantiate his allegations and claim made against the OPs.
On perusal of the slightly torned (upper portion) Cash Memo in question, produced by the complainant on record we find that the same does not contain the name of any fuel pump dealer, also vehicle no. as well as seller-s signature is missing.
No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming on the part of the complainant as to why he did not notice the said abnormalities (name of the fuel pump dealer (OP no. 1), his car number etc.) in the Cash memo although the same are essential to establish the authenticity of a Cash Memo. No reliable evidence and/or cogent document is produced/adduced by the complainant to show that he purchased the said diesel from OP no. 1 on 24-04-2014. That being the position, the Cash Memo in question cannot be accepted as a genuine receipt alleged to have been issued by the OP no. 1 on 24-04-2014 on account of selling of alleged adulterated diesel to the complainant.
We also fail to understand as to why the complainant did not lodge any official complaint with OP no. 1 through a letter or by making a notice in the Complaint & Suggestion book that is kept in every retail outlet/petrol pump immediately after he came to know about such malpractice.
Even if, for the sake of argument if it is assumed that the Cash Memo in question produced by the complainant was issued by the OP no. 1 for selling of alleged diesel to the complainant on 24-04-2014, then the question arises as to whether the Complainant was able to establish that said purchased diesel was adulterated with water for which his car was damaged as alleged.
No chemical expert opinion is forthcoming on record on the part of the complainant to establish that the diesel in question was adulterated with water.
We find from the written version of OP no. 2 that in each and every retail outlet/petrol pump, equipment is available for testing the quality of the product. Evidently, the complainant did not avail of this opportunity to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt.
From the enquiry report submitted by Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, IOC dt. 11-07-2014, we find that their investigation revealed that on the specified date there was no water in the diesel tank and in fact they found that there was no presence of water in the entire month. They also found on verification of the copies of cash memo of the OP no. 1 that save and except the cash memo those were issued in respect of DG sets/pump sets, all other cash memo invariably contain vehicle no.
Although the ld. Lawyer for the complainant banked upon the Note of mechanic of the car servicing centre which states that -Diesel and more water mixed up in fuel- to prove his case, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that he is not an expert. A mere note of a mechanic being not an opinion of a qualified Chemical Expert, does not establish that the diesel in question alleged to have been purchased by the complainant from OP no. 1 was adulterated with water. So, we cannot held the OP no. 1 guilty of unfair trade practice/deficiency in service.
Therefore, we are of considered view that the complainant has failed to prove his case as complained of against the OPs and as such the complainant is not entitled to any relief as sought for.
In the result, the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
The above two points are, thus, decided against the complainant.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP no. 1 and 2 and ex-parte against OP no. 3 without any cost.
