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

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more

Registrar cannot remove trademark from record without notice to trademark holder

In Kleenage Products (India) Private Limited vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, the petitioner had applied for registration of trademark ‘KLITOLIN’ which was accepted and from 1988 to 2009, the said trademark was renewed multiple times. The trademark was due for renewal on August 21, 2009, but the petitioner failed to tender application for renewal.  It was, thereafter, revealed that the trademark is likely to be removed from the register. The petitioner contended that the Registrar of Trademarks (respondent No.1) also failed to issue the requisite mandatory notice in Form O-3 to him (the registered proprietor) under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Bombay High Court allowed the petition holding that any such removal can only be possible if prior notice, mandatory under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, has been given Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/removal-registered-trademarks-cant-done-without-giving-prior-notice-registered-proprie...
Post a Comment
Read more