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 :
Shri
Abhijit Ghosh
__________Complainant
-
Versus –
M/s.
Madhabi Service Station, and Others.
_______Opposite parties
Evidence
on Affidavit of the Opposite Party No. 4 & 4(a), being Indian Oil
Corporation Limited.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Satyabrata Naskar, Manager Law WBSO of Indian Oil Corporation
Limited, having Kolkata Divisional Office (5th Floor ), 34A, Nirmal
Chandra Street, Kolkata - 700013, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
follows ;
1.
That I being the Officer of the
Opposite Party no. 4, & 4a, in the present consumer proceeding, being filed
by the Complainant, and I am well conversant with the facts and circumstances
derived from the records of the present consumer proceeding.
2.
That I beg to say that the Complaint
is not maintainable in its present form, either in term of the facts or in term
of the Law.
3.
That I beg to say that the Petition is
speculative, harassing, motivated and barred by the Principles of Law and hence
it is liable to be rejected at once.
4.
That I beg to say that the petition is
suffering from suppression of material facts and necessary party, and therefore
liable to be dismissed at once with exemplary costs.
5.
That I beg to say that the consumer petition
is suffering from any legal demand and thereby cause of action, the present
petition is motivated and without any jurisdiction.
6.
That I beg to say that the contents of
the Complaints are vague and based on after thought concocted story, made out
by the Complainant to in-clinch issues in his favour, and thus no part of the
contents of the Complaint has ever been admitted by the Opposite Party, except
those are the matter of records.
7.
That I beg to say that the present
Complaint has been instituted by the Complainant against the Opposite Party to
cause several hassle and harassments to the Opposite Party.
8.
That I beg to say that there is no
privity of contract between the parties.
9.
That I beg to say that the complainant
is not a Consumer as per provision of Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection
Act’ 1986.
10.
That I beg to say that there is no
Consumer disputes to be adjudicated before the Hon’ble District Commission,
between the parties herein.
11.
That I beg to say that the
Complainant’s disputes, is not a Consumer dispute and the Complainant is not a
consumer, as defined and enumerated in the relevant provisions of the Consumer
Protection Act’ 1986.
12.
That I beg to say that this opposite
party do not have any connection in respect of money transaction by the
complainant and the opposite party no.1, herein M/s. Madhabi Service Station,
through alleged “Debit Card” and “Pay TM” machine used by them. The alleged
transaction has never been performed by this opposite party. This opposite
party did not take any money from the complainant.
13.
That I beg to say that the alleged
incident as described by the complainant herein is solely with the complainant
and the other opposite parties other than this opposite party. This opposite
party is not a cup of tea in the alleged story and allegations as framed by the
complainant. Thus this opposite party is not even a necessary party in the
present consumer proceeding.
14.
That I beg to say that there is no
agreement and or contract by and between the complainant and this opposite
party, herein, in any manner, whatsoever.
15.
That I beg to say that the Opposite
Party, herein have no iota of knowledge about the alleged story of the
complainant herein, against the other opposite parties, and the receipt shown
therewith.
16.
That I beg to say that the Opposite
party, herein have no relationship with the complainant herein as alleged by
him, in his petition of complaint.
17.
That I beg to say that this opposite
party, herein have no disputes as alleged by the complainant herein, in his
petition of complaint.
18.
That I beg to say that this opposite
party, is not a necessary party to the story of the complainant herein as
alleged by him in his petition of complaint.
19.
That I beg to say that the Complaint
herein as alleged by him did not seeks any specific relief in his petition of
complaint, against this opposite party, herein.
20.
That I beg to say that there is no
relationship as of Consumer and the Service provider by and between this
opposite party, and the complainant herein.
21.
That I beg to say that the present
Consumer disputes as alleged by the complainant herein, is not maintainable in
the facts and in the law against this opposite party.
22.
That I beg to say that the allegations
as contended by the complainant herein are all fake and frivolous one, as those
are not substantiated with any single piece of papers or evidentiary value
papers.
23.
That I beg to say that the present
complaint has been made before the Hon’ble District Commission, motivated and
with a intention for the wrongful gain and acquire of wrongful claim thereby
the complainant herein.
24.
That I beg to say that this Opposite
Party, herein did not cause any deficiency in services, and or unfair trade
practices, in terms of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986, and
rules made thereof.
25.
That I beg to say that the Complainant
did not have any contacts and or relationship in any terms whatsoever, with
this opposite party.
26.
That I beg to say that there is no
cause of action has ever been described and or more particularly raised against
this opposite party, by the complainant.
27.
That I beg to say that there is no
specific allegation and or relief has ever been described and prayed for by the
complainant against this opposite party.
28.
That I beg to say that there is no
consumer dispute has ever been raised and or given in the petition of complaint
by the complainant against this opposite party, therefore there is no consumer
disputes with this opposite party.
29.
That I beg to say that pertinently,
this opposite party do not have any connection in respect of money transaction
by the complainant and the opposite party no.1, herein M/s. Madhabi Service
Station, through alleged “Debit Card” and “Pay TM” machine used by them. The
alleged transaction has never been performed by this opposite party. This
opposite party never taken any money from the complainant. The alleged incident
as described by the complainant herein is solely with the complainant and the
other opposite parties other than this opposite party. This opposite party is
not a cup of tea in the alleged story and allegations as framed by the
complainant. Thus this opposite party is not even a necessary party in the
present consumer proceeding.
30.
That I beg to say that 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."
31.
That I beg to say that 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. 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.
32.
That I beg to say that the present
petition of complaint is not bonafide against this opposite party, and the
complainant is not entitled to get any relief in terms of his prayer made
therein from this opposite party.
33.
That I beg to say that in the facts
and in the laws, it is totally evident from the application itself that the
complainant made his endeavor to put the Hon’ble District Commission into
motion to get his wrongful gains by procuring orders in terms of his prayer
before the Hon’ble District Commission.
34.
That I beg to say that in the facts
and in the laws, it is totally evident from the application itself that the
complainant is trying to miss utilizing the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
District Commission.
35.
That I beg to say that in the above
circumstances, there is no cause of action for the present proceedings by the
Petitioner, against this Opposite Party, this Opposite Party, accordingly pray
that the Complaint be dismissed with costs.
36.
That I beg to say that in the above
circumstances, there is no deficiency in service, and or unfair trade
practices, on the part of this Opposite Party, rather this Opposite Party is
victim of the concocted story and wrongful demand of the complainant.
37.
That I beg to say that the Complainant
neither has any cause of action nor the basis for filling the present complaint
and the Petitioner’s complaint is entirely baseless and misconceived and
deserve to be dismissed on this ground alone.
38.
That I beg to say that the Consumer Complaint
is false, frivolus and vexatious and has been filed with the mala fide intention,
and as such deserves to be dismissed with special costs.
39.
That I beg to say that the Consumer
Complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the petition of Complaint,
and the same is liable to be dismissed.
40.
That I beg to say that in the aforesaid
circumstances, this Opposite Party is seeking the dismissal of the Consumer
Complaint with exemplary cost, thereof.
41.
That I beg to say that the present consumer
complaint should be dismissed at once, as the same is found frivolous and
vexatious one, against this opposite party.
D E P O N E N T
Identified by me
Advocate.
Prepared in my Chamber,
Advocate.
Date : ________________________2025.
Place : Baruipur, South 24 Pasrganas.
N O T A R Y
No comments:
Post a Comment