IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 26th day of November, 2015
Filed on 30.05.2014
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.142/2014
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. James Francis 1. The Manager, M/s. Prima Fuels
Pazhambasseril House Arattuvazhi, Alappuzha North
Kanjiramchira Pin – 688 007
Alappuzha North – 688 007
2. The Regional Manager
M/s. Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd., Regional Office
Ernakulam North P.O.
Ernakulam – 682 018
(By Adv. V. Binish)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant is a regular purchaser of petroleum products from the first opposite party. On 10.4.2014 complainant purchased petroleum in his Motorbike for Rs.100/- from the first opposite party and asked to fill air, but the first opposite party denied the service and directed the complainant to fill air from a shop which away from there. He complained about the service of the first opposite party to the second opposite party by sending a registered letter to them. Thereafter, the complainant was ill-treated by the first opposite party went to purchase petrol from the first opposite party and warned the complainant not to come there for purchasing petrol. Aggrieved on the service of the opposite parties, the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. There is no direction to the petrol pump outlets from any authority to do some free services to the consumers. The allegation that on 10.4.2014 the complainant has purchased petrol for his bike as per bill is false, other allegation that when the complainant asked to fill the air they denied is also false, the complainant filled the air from the near by shop and paid Rs.20/- as their service charge is also false. There is no mention of his bike number in the complaint and the alleged bill is a fake bill. The complainant has issued one registered notice to the opposite parties and in that notice it is alleged that he paid Rs.10/- as the service charge for filling the air at Hind tyres. That it will show that the complainant is not come with clean hands and his intention is something else.
3. Complainant was examined as PW1.Documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A4.No oral or documentary evidence adduced by the opposite parties.
4. The complaint is found maintainable as per the order dated 26.11.2014 in an interim application for hearing about the maintainability.
5. The points came up for considerations are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief and cost?
6. According to the complainant when he purchased petrol from the first opposite party on 10.04.2014 for Rs.100/- he asked to fill air to his Motorbike, but first opposite party denied the service and directed the complainant to fill air from a shop which was situated away from there. Complainant produced the bill dated 10.4.2014 in order to prove that he has purchased petrol from the first opposite party and it marked as Ext.A1. Opposite parties filed version denying the allegations of the complainant. According to the opposite parties the bill produced is a fake bill. On verifying Ext.A1 we came to see that it was specifically written as Prime Fuels and bill No. is 9731. If it was a fake bill, it is the bounden duty of the opposite parties to prove that contention. In the instant case, the opposite parties have not produced the bill book register on 10.4.2014 to prove the transactions done on that day. In the absence of any such evidence it is difficult to believe that Ext.A1 is not issued by them. Another contention of the opposite parties is that there is no direction to the petrol pump outlets from any authority or corporation to do some free services to the consumers. Complainant produced the guide lines for dealership to public sector, oil marketing companies and it marked as Ext.A4. In page No.11 of the said guide lines, it is clearly stated that, “Retail outlet dealer would provide air facility to customers during the operating hours of the outlet and also retail outlet dealer should ensure prompt service and courteous behaviour at all times.” So it is clear that the opposite parties are expected facilities to the consumers during the operating hours of the outlet. It is obligatory for the opposite parties to make it available to the customers who want it. Even though there is no direct payment he is a beneficiary who is allowed to enjoy the benefits. If a retail outlet dealer denied private service to the customer, it will be an act of deficiency in rendering service to him. In the instant case, complainant proved that he purchased petrol from the first opposite party. Alleging the deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party, he sent a registered notice to the second opposite party. Ext.A2 and A3 evidenced the same. Opposite party failed to send a reply notice denying the allegations of the complainant. So it has come out in evidence that opposite party failed to render proper service to the complainant. Hence the first opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the inconvenience and mental agony that caused due to the deficiency in service on their part.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The first opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards compensation. There is no order as to costs. The order shall be complied by the opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and
pronounced in open Forum on this the 26th day of November, 2015.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - James Francis (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Receipt for 100/-
Ext.A2 - Registered letter 12.4.2014
Ext.A3 - Postal receipt
Ext.A4 - Extract of Marketing Discipline Guidelines
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy // By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
