Haryana

Ambala

CC/91/2021

Anu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Zamindara Petrol Pump - Opp.Party(s)

Davinder Singh

07 Jun 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	91/2021
Date of Institution	:	17/02/2021
Date of decision	:	07.06.2023

 

Anu wife of Sh. Kamaljit Singh S/o Sh. Tikka resident of H.No.1290, Sector-10, Ambala City.

          ……. Complainant

                                                Versus

1.       Zamindara Petrol Pump, Near Manav Chowk, Ambala City.

2.       Bharat Petroleum Ltd. Through its authorized person, Office at Bharat        Bhawan, 4 and 6, Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400001, Maharastra.

                                                                                                    ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri Devinder Singh, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                      Shri  Ranbir Singh Rana, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1

                     Shri Saravjeet Singh, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay the fuel bill amounting to Rs.2800/-, Taxi charges Rs.29,000/- repair charges Rs.36,566/-, Rs.3,000/- and  Rs.2,898/-
2. To pay the amount of the repair spent by the complainant on his vehicle, alongwith the expenditure borne during 30 Sept. 2020 to 28 Oct. 2020.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant on account of harassment and a sum of Rs.30,000/- as litigation fees.
4. Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that  the complainant is owner of Mahindra XUV 300 bearing registration No. HR-01AT-8927. The said vehicle was purchased by the complainant on Hypothecation. On 31.08.2020 the complainant had filled fuel/diesel in her car from OP No.1 on payment of Rs.2800/- through debit card of her father in law namely Tikka Ram. After few days when the complainant had started her car she felt ignition problem and on starting the engine, it made  unusual noise /sounds and display board of the complainant's car's meter started showing that there is water in fuel. As such, she took her car to the agency. The complainant also saw one local news channel, Khabbar Abhi Tak hosted by Swaran the report in which he was taking the interviews of the other public who had gone through the same problem with the same OP No. 1 in which OP No.1 had admitted his fault and had borne the loss of those people, but when the complainant approached with the regard to her problem, OP No.1 threatened her.   The vehicle in question was towed upto the service station for repairs, where it was found that  there is water in fuel tank and because of that Filter, Injector and Water in fuel sensor got damaged, which were got replaced on making payment of Rs.40,000/- and during that period complainant engaged a car on rent basis from Sandeep Travelers on making payment of Rs.29000/-. @ Rs.1,000/- per day. The complainant had purchased new car in April 2019 and within a year, the important parts thereof had to be replaced just because of intentional and deliberate fault of OP No.1 by selling adulterated fuel. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, not come with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts and locus standi etc.  On merits, it has been stated that if any water was mixed with the petrol/diesel, the display indicator of the vehicle will show red immediately and not after few days. One mobile phone reporter had made a video to malign the reputation/image of the OP No.1. After that inspection was carried out on 10.09.2020 by the Sales Officer Mr. Ajay Koda of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and no adulteration was found and in this regard and he gave his detailed report Annexure-R-1.  If the vehicle of the complainant was damaged it could be due to some other reason. There is no adulteration of water in the fuel sold by OP No.1.  The complainant never met to OP No.1 and, rather she made a complaint before SDM, Ambala on 29.9.2020 which was telephonically conveyed to DFSC and thereafter inspection was done by DFSC on 30.09.2020 and as per the report, Annexure-R-2 the working of OP No.1 was found in order and no water was found in the fuel. On 30.09.2020, samples of HSD were drawn by Inspector Legal Metrology under the supervision of DFSC and the said samples were further submitted to BPCL Lab for analysis. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.
4.           Upon notice, the OP No.2 appeared and filed written version and  raised preliminary objections to the effect  that the present complaint is not maintainable;  the complainant has not averred anywhere in her complaint that OP No.2 had supplied adulterated fuel to its dealer etc. On merits, it has been stated that  OP No.2 received two legal notices prior to the present consumer complaint, which were replied. Though the complainant had got filled fuel on 31.08.2020 in her vehicle but she never had any complaint for atleast one month and the water level indicator in her car also did not indicate presence of water in fuel tank for all those days. Even according to the complaint, she started facing problems only after few days but she failed to mention on which date she started facing problems, for the reasons best known to her.  Even from the complaint it is obvious that the complaint's car had no trouble immediately after filling fuel from OP No.1 nor the car indicator showed presence of water in the fuel tank. The complainant preferred a complaint before Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Ambala in relation to the alleged episode on 29.09.2020 which was telephonically conveyed to DFSC and in writing on 01.10.2020 vide letter no. 619 and an inspection was done by DFSC on 30.09.2020. Consequent to the complaint of the complainant samples of HSD were drawn by the inspector legal metrology under the supervision of DFSC. The samples were submitted to the Lab for analysis which were found to be in order. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure C-A alongwith documents as Annexure CA to CF and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Jagjit Singh son of Shri Khushpal Singh, Proprietor of OP No.1-M/s Zamindara Petrol Pump, near Manav Chowk, Ambala City as Annexure R-1 alongwith documents as Annexure R-2 & R-3 and closed evidence on behalf of the OP No.1. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Suraj Pratap, Territory Manager (Retail) of OP No.2-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, as Annexure RW2/A alongwith documents as Annexure R-2/A to R-2/F and closed evidence on behalf of the OP No.2.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by supplying the adulterated fuel i.e. the fuel mixed with water, which resulted into breakdown of the vehicle in question. He further submitted that there was news on the local channel “Khabbar Abhi Tak” hosted by Swaran that other people have also gone through the same problem, as recorded in the CD Annexure F,  By selling the adulterated fuel, the OPs have committed deficiency in providing service.
8.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 submitted that since the complainant has failed to place on record any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that the fuel sold to her was adulterated and also at the same time, the reports Annexure R-2 and R-3, referred to above, clearly says that there was no water found in the fuel of the OP No.1. He further submitted that the report made by the press reporter on his mobile is to malign the repudiation of the OP No.1 and the CD tendered by the complainant has no value in eyes of law.
9.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2 also while reiterating the averments made in its written version submitted that the complainant has failed to place on record any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that the fuel sold to her was adulterated. He further submitted that it was after a period of one month that the complainant alleged that adulterated fuel was sold to her whereas on the other hand, had the fuel been adulterated, the display of the vehicle would have indicated about the same on the very same day. He further submitted that even after inspection of the fuel of OP No.1, the reports Annexure R-2 and R3, referred to above, clearly says that there was no water found in the fuel of OP No.1.
10.           The question which falls for consideration is, as to whether, the complainant has proved the fact that the fuel which was got filled by her from the pump of OP No.1 was contaminated with water or not, resulting into damage of her vehicle? It may be stated here that in order to prove her case, the complainant has placed on record the job cards for the period from 18.08.2020 to 28.10.2020, Annexure C to Annexure E, from where she got her vehicle repaired after replacing some parts, yet, we did not find anything mentioned in these job cards that any water in fuel tank was found, as a result of which defective parts were replaced. In inspection report dated 10.09.2020, Annexure R-2 and inspection report dated 30.09.2020, Annexure R-3, it was clearly held that no water was found in the diesel tanks of OP No.1. The complainant has failed to rebut the said reports by placing on record any contrary evidence. Moreover, there is no cogent and convincing evidence to prove that OPs were held guilty on the basis of the contents of the said CD.  The CD placed on record regarding the statement of some reporter is of no help to the complainant. Under these circumstances, the OPs cannot be held deficient in providing services to the complainant.

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits, consequently we dismiss the same, without any order as to costs.Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules.File be annexed and consigned to the record room.

  Announced:- 07.06.2023

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President