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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more