C.C.No.50/2008
Between:

Smt Badugu Ratnam, W/oLakshmana Rao, 49 years,
OPP RTC complex, Kakinda road, Ramachandrapuram, E G Dist. ..Complainant.
A N D
I B P Auto Services Petrol Bunk, Mandapeta Alamuru Bypass
Road, Y Junction, Mandapeta 533-308.
Opposite party.
This case is coming on 20.3.2009 .for final hearing before this Forum and upon perusing the complaint, and other material papers on hand and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A V Ch S S Murthy, Advocate for the complainant and Sri S G Rama Rao, Advocate for the opposite party and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum has pronounced the following.
O R D E R
(By Smt.H V Ramana, Member)
This is a complaint filed under section.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant to direct the opposite party to pay the claim amount of Rs.30,500/-.


2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that, she is the owner of Maruthi Zen Diesel and its registered No.AP05 AM11. The complainant purchased for Rs.500/- on 28.10.2007 from the opposite party vide Receipt No.5670. The complainant instructed the opposite party to fill the diesel in the tank and paid the money under the impression that the opposite party filled the diesel in the tank and they issued a receipt. Again on the next day the complainant purchased diesel in another petrol bunk at Nadakuduru for Rs.500/-. They have filled 15 lts in the tank. At that time the complainant noticed the quantity that was filled by the opposite party is only 10.4 liters. When enquired the opposite party and they replied by mistake he filled with petrol and promised to rectify it. If the petrol bunk people filled the petrol instead of diesel, they have to clean the tank and fill the diesel. The opposite party promised to do the above said cleaning within a week. When the complainant telephoned the opposite party, one of their persons threatened him with dire consequences if calls again. The main mistake is committed by the opposite party in filling the petrol instead of diesel amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite party and the opposite party gave a reply with false allegations. Hence, the complaint.


3. The opposite party filed written version denying all the material allegations made by the complainant. The opposite party submits that IBP Auto Service petrol bunk, Mandapeta is owned and operated by the IBP company and it is having distribution network both for HSD and MS. There will be lessees for each station. So far as the Mandapeta is concerned, there will be one Ogirala Brahmaji is the contractor for the supply of the diesel and petrol and he is maintaining the fuel filling station at Mandapeta by engaging staff to felicitate the supply to the automobiles. There will be manager and staff who will be attending to the fuel filling of the automobiles around the clock in 8 hours shift. The fuel filling pumps for petrol and diesel are separately located and maintaining distance in between them. The vehicle drivers who are in need of petrol or diesel will stop their vehicles in front of the respective pumps and get the bill from the bill collector who is sitting in the glass chamber. He will receive the value of the product and issue the bill and it is a invariable procedure followed in petrol bunks and it is look out of either by the vehicle owner who brought the vehicle by self driving and the driver who drives the vehicle to be watchful about the reading of the meter of the fuel pump or the kind of fuel pumped. The complainant noticed that after he traveled a distance which requires 10.4 liter petrol in 1 day, it is only a false allegation made by the complainant and this opposite party never promised to clean the car tank and fill the diesel with the amount i.e Rs.500/- paid by the complainant. The complainant is not entitled for any relief as there is no deficiency in service on his part and it is the look out of the complainant while purchasing the fuel for his vehicle. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.


4. Exs.A.1 to A.6 has been marked on behalf of the complainant and no documents were marked behalf of the opposite party and no oral evidence has been adduced on either side.


5. Heard both sides. Both the parties filed written arguments.


6.The points that arise for consideration are:

1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
party?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief, If so, to what
relief ?

7.POINT NO.1: Admitted facts in this case are that the complainant is the owner of the Maruthi Zen Diesel car bearing No. AP05 AN 0011 and filed attested copy of the C book vide Ex.A.1. The complainant contended that he asked the opposite party to fill the diesel for Rs.500/-, but the opposite party filled the petrol instead of diesel and issued a bill Dt.28.10.2007 under Ex.A.2. The complainant further contended that on the next day i.e 29.10.2007 when he purchased diesel at Kakinada for Rs.500/- then he realized the quantity is more than the quantity filled by the opposite party under Ex.A.3. Immediately when the complainant informed the same to the opposite party and the opposite party promised to do the needful. When the complainant demanded the opposite party to rectify the above said mistake, the opposite party failed to do the same. The complainant got issued a legal notice under Ex.A.4 and A.5 and the opposite party gave a reply with false allegations.

The opposite party contended that it is the duty of the complainant when she purchased the diesel she should be present while filling the tank, but they realized the said mistake only on the next day while she was refilling the tank at Kakinada. Immediately the complainant informed the same to this opposite party and it was denied by the opposite party.

The opposite party submitted that their fuel station is having filling pumps of petrol and diesel separately and maintaining the standard distance between the petrol and diesel pumps prescribed for fuel filling station as per norms prescribed by the licensing authority. There will be a separate bill collector which is at a distance and closed with glass doors on all sides in which they will keep the Engine oil tins, break oil tins and other oils. The vehicle drivers who are in need of either petrol or diesel will stop their vehicles at relevant filling pumps and go to the counter where the bill collector sitting in the glass enclosed chambers. The person who purchased the oil will take the bill to the fuel filling pump where he stopped his vehicle for filling purpose and delivered the bill to the boy who attend to the filling. When the owner of the vehicle unlocks the fuel tank, then only the fuel filling the boy will pump the oil into the tank as per the bill and this is procedure followed in all bunks. It is the lookout of the consumer while he is purchasing the fuel. In a diesel car, if petrol is filled or vise verse the running of the engine will not be in smooth passion and engine gives trouble and unless engine is cleaned and the fuel in the tank is completely removed the vehicle will not come to normalcy. The opposite party further contended that the complainant realized on the next day that the opposite party filled with petrol not with the diesel and she never said that her engine gave any trouble. The complainant realized the above said alleged mistake only after purchasing the diesel at Nandakoduru and she did not give any compliant nor she brought any proof regarding the cleaning of the fuel tank or engine and the complainant is not entitled for any relief.


As per the material on record, it is observed that the complainant purchased petrol with the opposite party on 28.10.2007, but she realized the fact that the opposite party filled the fuel tank with petrol instead of diesel only on 29.10.2007 while she was refilling her fuel tank at Kakinada after traveling around 30 to 40 Kms. If that is the case the vehicle will give trouble and she could not reach the destination. The complainant submitted that she contacted the opposite party and complained the above said mistake made by them. She has not filed any proof of document that she contacted the opposite party. The complainant also not filed any proof of document with regard to the cleaning of the fuel tank and any other repairing charges pertaining to the trouble given by the car. It is the bounden duty of the complainant that she must be present while filling the fuel tank and she must place the car where the diesel pump is situated. Therefore, we opine that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.


8. POINT NO.2: In the result, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed without costs