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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more