Brief Notes of Argument on behalf of the Opposite Parties in Consumer Case

 

Before the Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South 24 Parganas

Baruipur, Kolkata – 700144

 

 

Consumer Complaint Case No. 48 of 2018

 

                                                In the matter of ;

 

                                                Abhijit Ghosh,

                                                        _________Complainant

 

·        Versus –

 

M/s. Madhabi Service Station & Others,

        _________Opposite Parties

 

 

Brief Notes of Argument on behalf of the Opposite Party no. 4 & 4(a);

Indian Oil Corporation Limited

 

·      Facts;

IOCL did not have any connection in respect of money transaction by the Complainant. This is the O.P. no. 1, M/s. Madhabi Service Station, through alleged “Debit Card” and “Pay TM” machine used by them and the alleged disputes has been arose by and between them.

“October, 2017, the complainant filled up his car with diesel worth Rs. 1,889.94 from the Petrol Pump of the O.P. no. 1, M/s. Madhabi Service Station, and made online payment for the price of diesel. To make online payment, he delivered his debit card and PIN to the service person of the said petrol pump. The said service person realized Rs. 1,89,000/- by swiping the debit card instead of Rs. 1,889.94 due to inadvertence or bonafide mistake. When the mistake was reported to the O.P. no. 1, by the complainant, the O.P. made then and then the said sale “Void Sale” and assured the complainant that the money would be returned to his account within a few days. Thereafter, the complainant also made online payment of Rs. 1,889.94 to the said O.P. that day for the diesel purchased by him. But the sum of Rs. 1,89,000/- has not been returned to the account of the complainant as yet from the account of the O.P. maintained with City Bank. Complainant waited till 14.02.2018, but to no effect. Therefore, he has filed the present consumer case.”

The alleged transaction has never been performed by IOCL.

IOCL never had taken any money from the Complainant.

The alleged incident as described by the complainant herein is solely with the complainant and the other O.P’s. IOCL is not a cup of tea in the entire alleged story given by the Consumer Complaint.

The Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) does not have a direct contractual relationship with the consumer who buys their products, as the contract is typically made with a distributor or gas agency, meaning the consumer cannot directly sue IOCL in a consumer court for any issues with their product or service due to the lack of a "privity of contract." 

·       Distributor relationship;

IOCL primarily deals with distributors who then sell the products to consumers, creating a "principal-to-principal" relationship between IOCL and the distributor, not with the individual consumer.

 

·       Consumer Protection Act implications;

 

Because of this lack of direct contract, a consumer cannot claim "deficiency in service" against IOCL under the Consumer Protection Act. In the case in hand there is no deficiency in services has ever been described or given by the Complainant on the party of IOCL.

 

·      Judicial precedents;

 

Indian Oil Corporation – Versus – Consumer Protection Council, Kerala and another, decided on Dec. 7^th, 1993, reported in 1994 SCC 1 397, wherein it was held that the IOCL is not liable for the irregularities committed by another O.P. as (1) in view of the Dealership Agreement, the relationship between the dealer and the IOCL is one of the principal to principal basis and not as a principal to agent. Since the relationship was of principal to principal basis, there was no privity of contract between the IOCL and the Consumer and therefore, the complaint filed by the consumer against the IOCL was not maintainable. & (2) Insofar as “there is no privity of contract between the appellant and the consumer no ‘deficiency’ as defined under Section 2(g) of the Consumer Protection Act states as follows: “(g) ‘deficiency’ means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;” arises. Therefore, the action itself is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. For all these reasons, we set aside the judgments of the authorities below. Civil Appeal will stand allowed. However, in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.

 

=======================XXXX======================