View 369 Cases Against Petrol Pump
R. Thangamani filed a consumer case on 10 Jan 2023 against The Manager Bharath Petrol Pump and Simson in the South Chennai Consumer Court. The case no is CC/222/2022 and the judgment uploaded on 31 Mar 2023.
Date of Complaint Filed : 06.06.2022
Date of Reservation : 27.12.2022
Date of Order : 10.01.2023
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.
PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L., : PRESIDENT
THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L., : MEMBER I
THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA., : MEMBER II
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 222/2022
TUESDAY, THE 10th DAY OF JANUARY 2023
R. Thangamani, Age 36,
No. 42/36, 2nd Floor,
Lal Mohammed Cross Street,
Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005. ... Complainant
..Vs..
The Manager,
Bharath Petrol Pump & Simson and Co,
Chinchadripet,
Chennai - 600 002. ... Opposite Party
******
Counsel for the Complainant : M/s. Gnanapranavan
Counsel for the Opposite Party : Exparte
On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant, we delivered the following:
ORDER
Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,
1. The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards unfair trading and deficiency of service and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony along with cost.
2. The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-
The Complainant submitted that, he came for a case discussion with his client at Chindadripet on 16.04.2022. After the discussion with his client he went to refill the petrol at the Opposite Party petrol bunk. He asked about the quantity of the petrol filled for his vehicle. The sales man got tension and started using dirty words towards the Complainant. He talked with the Petrol Bunk Manager regarding the issue. The Manager also tried to control his sales man. But he did not mind about his manager. The quantity of the fuel was in dispute between the Complainant and the Opposite Party. Because of the unfair trade practice of the Opposite Party, the Complainant suffered serious mental agony. The Complainant issued a legal notice to the Opposite Party on 02.05.2022 and the same was received by the Opposite Party on 04.05.2022. After that the Opposite Party had resent resended that legal notice to the Advocate on 06.05.2022. The act of the Opposite Party is liable to be punished according to law. The Complainant herein is entitled to get compensation from the Opposite Party. Hence the complaint.
3. The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents were marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-5. The Opposite Party did not appear before this Commission even after sufficient notice was served and remained set exparte.
Points for Consideration
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?
3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?
Point No.1:
The contention of the Complainant is that on 16.04.2022, while filling petrol to his two wheeler at the Opposite Party Petrol bunk he had wordy quarrel with the sales man about the quantity of petrol filled in his two wheeler. According to the Complainant the quantity of petrol was in dispute and that amounted to unfair trade practise. The legal notice dated 02.05.2022 by the Complainant was received by the Opposite Party on 04.05.2022.
As per Ex.A-1, the Complainant had filled petrol from the Opposite Party petrol bunk for Rs.100/- on 16.04.2022. The allegation that there was some dispute regarding the quantity of petrol filled from the Opposite Party bunk to his vehicle is not substantiated by valid documentary evidence. As the Complainant failed to prove his case of unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party regarding the quantity of petrol filled from the Opposite Party petrol bunk, the Opposite Party cannot be held liable for the unfair trade practise or / and deficiency in service.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Commission is of the considered view that the Complainant by not providing sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations against the Opposite Party regarding the quantity of petrol filled for his vehicle on 16.04.2022 from the Opposite Party Petrol Bunk, has failed to prove his case that the Opposite Party had committed unfair trade practise and / or deficiency in service. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered, against the Complainant.
Point No.2:
As discussed and decided Point No.1, that the Complainant had failed to prove his case that the Opposite Party had committed deficiency in service and / or unfair trade practise, the Complainant in not entitled for the reliefs claimed or for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.
In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 10th of January 2023.
S. NANDAGOPALAN T.R. SIVAKUMHAR B.JIJAA
MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-
Ex.A1 | 16.04.2022 | Petrol bill copy issued by Opposite Party |
Ex.A2 | 02.05.2022 | Office copy of the legal notice along with the Postal Receipt |
Ex.A3 | 06.05.2022 | Acknowledgement card |
Ex.A4 | 04.05.2022 | Acknowledgement consignment web. Copy |
Ex.A5 | 06.05.2022 | Legal Notice returned cover by Opposite Party to Advocate |
List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-
NIL
S. NANDAGOPALAN T.R. SIVAKUMHAR B.JIJAA
MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.