DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 26^th  day of March 2013

Present : Smt.Seena H, President

            : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

            : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member           Date of filing: 26/11/2012

(C.C.No.211/2012)

M.Narayanankutty,

Mangattil House,

Punchapadam(PO),

Palakkad – 678 634                               -       Complainant

(By Adv.P.N.Balagopalan) 

V/s

1.The Proprietor,

    M/s.Vayillyamkunnu Fuels,

    Dealers of H.P.C.L.

    Vayillyamkunnu Junction,

   Katampazhipuram

    Palakkad – 678 633

(By Adv.K.R.Kochunarayanan)

2.G.Sreenivas,

   Sales Officer,

   Hindustan Petroleum Company Ltd.,

   C/o.A.S.Agencies, H.P.Dealer,

   Nurani, Palakkad

(By Adv.P.P.Balan)

3.The Regional Manager,

   Hindustan Petroleum Company Ltd.,

   Kozhikkode Retail Region,

   Elathoor,

   Kozhikkode – 673 303

(By Adv.P.P.Balan)

4.The General Manager,

    H.P.House,

   17, Jamshedji Tata Road,

   Mumbai – 400 020                                      -        Opposite parties

(By Adv.P.P.Balan)

O R D E R

By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER

Complainant is the registered owner of Hundai Accent Diesel Private Car bearing registration No.KL-9N-747. The complainant purchased one cruise 15W40 M2-C-094/11 Engine Oil, product of Hindustan Petroleum Company Ltd. from 1^st opposite party for the purpose of using in the car. As per bill No.44502 dated 9/9/12 1^st opposite party collected Rs.230/- from the complainant as price of the engine oil, when the M.R.P. of the product is only Rs.185/- When questioned  about the same 1^st opposite party not only misbehaved towards the complainant, but also arrogantly commanded that the complainant will have to pay Rs.230/- if he wants the same. Since the complainant was in urgent need, he had to purchase the same from 1^st opposite party by paying excessive rate. Then the complainant complained about the same to 2^nd opposite party over telephone. As there was no response from 2^nd opposite party, the complainant sent a lawyer notice dated 6/10/12 to opposite parties. Except 2^nd opposite party others received the notice. 1^st opposite party sent a reply disputing the true facts. 3^rd opposite party in their reply dated 15/10/12 conveyed  that they had sought explanation from the 1^st opposite party about the complaint and also to explain the reasons for the said lapses within 7 days. Thereafter 3^rd opposite party again sent a letter dated 29/10/12 to Advocate of complainant  stating that 1^st opposite party has confirmed that its staff, by mistake, without verifying MRP of old stock had issued a bill charging new rate for HP cruise engine oil and also that they have taken action against the 1^st opposite party as per dealership agreement and imposed appropriate fine on the dealer. To the knowledge of the complainant, the company has not taken the matter seriously and the letter sent to him is only an eye-wash. The 1^st opposite party has not so far paid the amount demanded in the notice. The act of 1^st opposite party amounts to violation of the rules, deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the 1^st opposite party to return the excess amount of Rs.45/- collected from him and also pay Rs.10,000/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of purchase to date of payment as compensation for mental agony with costs of the proceedings.

Opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions. The 1^st opposite party  stated that they had not received excess amount stated in the MRP. The cost of the cruise 15.W.40 M2-C-094/11 was Rs.230/-. The complainant not produced any registration certificate to prove the vehicle bearing register No.KL-9N-747 owned by him. The 1^st opposite party conducting business with the help of 6 employees. The cost of the engine oil was not came upto Rs.185/- The 1^st opposite party has not collected Rs.45/- as excess amount from the complainant. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of 1^st opposite party.

Opposite party 3 filed version on behalf of opposite parties 2  & 4 stating that 1^st opposite party, a proprietary concern is a dealer of petroleum products. The relationship between 1^st opposite party and them is one of principal to principal  basis. The 1^st opposite party is functioning independently and is directly managing the sale of petroleum products at the outlet and they are not responsible for the deficiency in service if any on the part of the 1^st opposite party. In fact on receipt of authenticated complaint dated 6/10/12 3^rd  opposite party called for the remark from 1^st opposite party. As the materials made available in response thereof the opposite parties were convinced a prima face omission on the part of 1^st opposite party in pricing the product and hence by adopting the usual practice a fine was imposed on the 1^st opposite party duly informing the complainant. Except the above action the opposite parties 2 to 4 are not legally competent to resolve the dispute between the complainant and 1^st opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 2 – 4.

Complainant and opposite parties filed chief affidavit. Ext.A1 to A6 marked on the side of complainant. Ext.B1 & B2 marked on the side of 1^st opposite party. MO1 marked on the side of the complainant. MO2 marked on the side of 1^st opposite party. Complainant examined as PW1. Both parties filed argument notes. Matter heard.

Issues to be considered are

1.    Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties   ?

2.     If so, what is the relief and cost ?

Issue No.1 & 2 

We perused relevant documents  on record. It is evident from Ext.A1 that the complainant has purchased cruise engine oil 15W 40 M2-C-094-11 on 9/9/12 for an amount of Rs.230/- from 1^st opposite party. According to 1^st opposite party in Ext.A1 the name of the complainant and vehicle No. are not mentioned. The 1^st opposite party has not produced evidence to show that they mentioned the name of the complainant and vehicle number  in their receipt. The vehicle no. in Ext.A1 receipt shown nothing. Ext.A2 series shown the complainant sent lawyer notice to all opposite parties. Ext.A3 is the reply notice sent by 1^st opposite party. Ext.A4 dated 15/10/12  sent by the 3^rd opposite party to complainant’s counsel stating that they sought explanation from 1^st opposite party  about the complaint and also to explain the reasons within 7 days. Ext.A6 dated 29/10/12 by 3^rd opposite party stating that staff of 1^st opposite party by mistake without verifying MRP of old stock had issued a bill charging new rate of HP cruise engine oil and also they had taken action against 1^st opposite party as per dealership agreement and imposed appropriate fine. According to 1^st opposite party the complainant has not produced the bottle of Rs.185/-. The complainant produced one bottle marked as M.O.1 mentioned the M.R.P. of Rs.197/- Ext.A1, the 1^st opposite party  has sold the cruise engine oil for an amount of Rs.230/-. The 1^st opposite party has not produced evidence to show that they sold the Cruise 15W 40 for an amount of Rs.230/- on 09/09/2012.

So the 1^st opposite party has collected excess amount mentioned in the price list. More over Ext.A6 clearly mentioned  by the 3^rd opposite party that the staff of 1^st opposite party by mistake without verifying MRP of old stock had issued a bill charging new rate for HP cruise engine oil. In short the 1^st opposite party has collected excess amount instead of MRP. The 1^st opposite party produced MO2, one case of Cruise 15W 40 engine oil for an amount of Rs.230/- The 1^st opposite party has not produced documentary evidence to show that the price of Cruise 15W 40 engine oil was Rs.230/- only.  The counsel of 1^st opposite party argued that Cruise 15W 40 engine oil is not used in diesel engine car. The main allegation of the complainant is that 1^st opposite party has collected excess amount stated  in MRP. Moreover the complainant deposed that he used the Cruise 15W 40 engine oil in his car. Admittedly Ext.A1 is the receipt issued by the 1^st opposite party. No documentary evidence produced by 1^st opposite party to show that they had mentioned the name of the customer and vehicle number in their receipt. At the time of cross examination complainant deposed that the staff of 1^st opposite party told him that the price of Cruise 15W 40 was Rs.185/-. No contradictory evidence produced by the 1^st opposite party. According to the complainant the batch number as per Ext.B2 document showing  cost as Rs.230/- is different and would not tally with the batch number of the oil purchased by the complainant as per Ext.A1. The act of sale of product at an arbitrarily  fixed high rate clearly amounts to violation of rules and deficiency in service. But the complainant has not produced evidence to show that Rs.185/- as the MRP  of cruise engine oil. In MO1 shows that the cost of cruise engine oil of empty case is  Rs.197/-. As per Ext.A1 1^st opposite party  has collected the price of Cruise  engine oil as Rs.230/- on 9/09/2012.  3^rd opposite party filed version and  affidavit stating that  they had taken action against 1^st opposite party duly informing the complainant. It is a fit case for awarding compensation for deficiency in service. On verifying Ext.A1 and MO1, the 1^st opposite party has collected excess amount from complainant as stated in the MRP. The complainant claimed relief against 1^st opposite party alone. So opposite parties 2 to 4 exonerated from the liability.

In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party. In the result complaint partly allowed. We direct the 1^st opposite party to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation for the deficiency in service and mental agony, and pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.   

  Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order,  failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 26^th day of March  2013.

             Sd/-

Seena H

President

                Sd/-

Preetha G Nair

Member

              Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1  - Bill issued by 1st opposite party dated 9/9/12

Ext.A2 – Lawyer notice issued to opposite parties with postal receipts and acknolwedmgent cards dated 6/10/12

Ext.A3  – Lawyer notice to 2nd oppsoite party returned unserved

Ext.A4  – Reply notice sent on behalf of 1st opposite party

Ext.A5 – Letter sent by 3rd opposite party with cover dtd.15/10/12

Ext.A6 - Letter sent by 3rd opposite party with cover dtd.29/10/12

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

Ext.B1 – Purchase Invoice dtd.31/03/12

Ext.B2 series (4nos) – Purchase Invoice dtd.21/09/11

Marked Objects

MO1 – One empty bottle Cruise 15W40 Engine Oil

MO2 – One bottle containing  Cruise 15W40 Engine Oil.

Cost

Rs. 1,000/-  allowed as cost of the proceedings.