State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
K.R.S.Proprietor,M/S.Amman Agro ... vs T.Parthipan,S/O.L.Dhanasekaran,Ramanathapuram. ... on 30 May, 2022
1
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.
PRESENT: THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
F.A.No.81/2016
(Against the order made in C.C.No.37/2010 dated 22.03.2016 on the file of
the District Forum, Pudukkottai.)
MONDAY, THE 30th DAY OF MAY 2022
Proprietor, K.R.S.
M/s.Amman Agro Fuels,
Avudaiyarkovil & Taluk,
Pudukkottai District. Appellant/1st Opposite Party
-Vs-
1. Parthipan,
S/o L.Dhanasekaran,
Pathanakkudi Village,
Vellaiyapuram Post,
Thiruvadanai Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District. 1st Respondent/Complainant
2. The Director,
Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Athur, Kadaparai Village,
Authur Post,
Karur District. 2nd Respondent/2nd Opposite Party
Counsel for Appellant/Opposite party-1 : Mr.P.Ragupathi, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondent-1/Complainant : Served Called Absent.
Counsel for Respondent-2/Opposite Party-2 : Served Called Absent.
This appeal coming before me for final hearing on 08.11.2021 and upon
perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:-
ORDER
THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
2
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/1st opposite party under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the learned District Forum, Pudukkottai made in C.C.No.37/2010, dated 22.03.2016, partly allowing the complaint.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Forum, Pudukkottai.
3. The first opposite party suffering by an order, directing the first opposite party to return the amount of Rs.40.28ps collected from the complainant and also directing them to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as cost to the complainant. The complaint against the second opposite party is dismissed, in the hands of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pudukkottai (hereinafter in short "District Forum") have preferred this appeal before this Commission.
4. The case of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant purchased 35.31 liters diesel from the first opposite party on 27.02.2010 for his paddy harvesting vehicle TN 65 J 7184 and also purchased 96 point of petrol by paying Rs.1400/-for supply of diesel and Rs.50/- for the supply of petrol he obtained bill from the first opposite party. On 28.02.2010 the complainant paid the amount for the supply of 41.55 liters of diesel and asked in difference amount of diesel with the first opposite party. They have not properly answered the complainant found collection of excess amount of Rs.40.28/- from the complainant for the supply of diesel on 28.02.2010. The complainant enquired the collection of excess amount on 29.02.2010 the 1st opposite party scolded him collection of excess amount would amounts to deficiency 3 in service. The first opposite party is the dealer under the control of second opposite party. Therefore directing the opposite parties to return the excess amount of Rs.40.28ps collected from the complainant and also directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.95,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and to pay cost of the proceedings.
5. Written version filed by the first opposite party is as follows:- The complaint is filed by creating forced documents only for threatening the first opposite party. The Advocate notice was received by the temporary staff and it was known to the knowledge belatedly and the first opposite party sent the reply to the advocate for the complainant. There is no deficiency in service the complaint may be dismissed.
6. The Learned District Forum, after taking into account of the evidences adduced by both parties, had held that the first opposite party committed deficiency in service by collecting excess amount for the supply of diesel. Directing the first opposite party to return the amount of Rs.40.28ps collected from the complainant and also directing them to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as cost to the complainant. The complaint against the second opposite party is dismissed.
7. Being aggrieved against that order the first opposite party challenging it by filing the appeal stating that the Ex.A1 & A2 were not issued by the fist opposite party. The vehicle noted is not belongs to the complainant and the relevant documents also not produced. The Ex.A2 was not bearing the name of the complainant and the Registration number of the vehicle, serial number. Therefore the appeal may be allowed and to set aside the District Forum order. 4
8. No additional evidences were adduced by both parties in this appeal before this Commission.
9. Point for consideration is;-
Whether the order passed by the Learned District Forum, Pudukkottai in C.C.No.37/2010, dated 22.03.2016 is sustainable under law or not?
10. Point: The complainant purchased diesel and petrol for his vehicle regularly from the first opposite party on 27.02.2010 he purchased 35.31 liters of diesel and 96 point of petrol by paying Rs.1450/-. After purchased the diesel on 28.02.2010 he found the excess amount of Rs.40.28ps was collected from the complainant. When he claimed the collection of excess amount the first opposite party has said to be scolded with the complainant. Now, the complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum. The learned District Forum also in favour of the complainant.
11. Now, it was challenged by the first opposite party the complainant remained absent in the appeal proceedings. He has not filed written arguments on the side for proving the purchased of diesel and petrol from the first opposite party. The complainant marked Ex.A1 dated 27.02.2010 and Ex.A2 dated 28.02.2010 both the receipts were printed the name K.R.S. M/s. Amman Agro Fuels. The first opposite party raised a contention that receipts were not issued by them to the complainant. There is some possibility of obtaining those receipts with the help of labours working under the first opposite party. The first opposite party raised different contention in the reply notice in Ex.A5 and written version two difference contention raised by the first opposite party in the reply notice. The first opposite party claim the receipts were obtained by the complainant with the help of their staff. Subsequently, changed his mind and raised in the written version as the complainant created 5 forged documents. He claimed name of the complainant and registration number of the vehicle were not mentioned in Ex.A2 only on that ground alone the first opposite party raised the contention the documents marked by complainant Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 were created false documents. But, they have not alleged any complaint before the police station against the complainant for creating false documents and submitted before court of law for better getting benefit for those documents. No action taken against the complainant would go to show the documents are genuinely issued by the first opposite party only for the supply of diesel to the complainant. Therefore the complainant proved the allegation set out in his complaint by marked relevant document. The 1st opposite party failed to disprove the contention. Therefore, the order passed by the learned District Forum is sustainable under law and answered accordingly for the point for consideration.
12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the learned District Forum, Pudukkottai made in C.C.No.37/2010, dated 22.03.2016. In addition the appellant/1st opposite party is directed to pay additional cost of Rs.1000/- to the respondent/complainant in this appeal.
Dictated to the Steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 30th day of May 2022.
Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxxxx N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.