Skip to main content

Petrol pump to pay Rs 24K for filling petrol instead of diesel

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has asked a petrol pump owner here to pay Rs 24,000 to a man for filling petrol instead of diesel in his car, causing damage to the engine.

The consumer commission comprising judicial member S A Siddiqui and member S C Jain passed the order while upholding a district consumer forum's order which had asked a Delhi-based petrol pump, Matta Automobiles, to pay Rs 24,000 to one Brij Mohan.

"...We do not find any justification for any interference (in forum's order) from our side with the result the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed," the commission said, adding that forum's order was legally sound and should be maintained.

Mohan had told the commission that on June 26, 2007, the operator of the petrol pump had filled petrol instead of diesel in his car.

As a result, the car had to be repaired and he had to pay Rs 38,604 as bill.

Thereafter, Mohan filed a consumer complaint against the petrol pump. The petrol pump owner, however, denied the claim saying the complainant should himself have been vigilant.

The district forum in its order had held the petrol pump operator guilty of negligence and said that both the parties should bear the expenses incurred in repair of the car engine.

The forum thereafter decreed that the petrol pump owner should pay a sum of Rs 20,000 towards expenses of car engine repair besides Rs 3,000 as compensation and Rs 1000 as litigation cost.

Aggrieved by the forum's order, the petrol pump owner had approached the state consumer commission.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/petrol-pump-to-pay-rs-24k-for-filling-petrol-instead-of-diesel-114062400599_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more