1. Brief facts of the case are that as per version of the complainant he is the owner of car Toyota Corolla with registration NO. MLN- 353. This car has diesel engine. On 21.7.2009 the complainant along with witnesses went to the petrol pump of the respondent and got diesel for Rs. 300/-. On 22.7.2010 a defect appeared in the car on which the car was brought on Toyota Motors Multan where it was found that due to impure fuel the fuel pump of the car went out of order. On 23.7.2009 the complainant went to the petrol pump of the respondent showed the receipt of fuel and told them that due to impure fuel engine of the car went out of order. At that time the complainant came to know that actually the salesman had mistakenly filled the petrol in the fuel tank of the car instead of diesel. The complainant asked the respondent to compensate him but on his refusal he sent legal notice to the respondent. He alleged that engine of the car is now unusable which is of the value of Rs. 4 lacs. He has also claimed Rs. 7474/- as los of engine, Rs. 5000/- for nosal set, Rs.
2. 9000/- labor charges, Rs. 15000/- for counsel fee, Rs. 3000/- expenses of filing this case and Rs.
3. 50000/- for mental torture. The respondent refused to pay the above said amount. Hence this complaint.
4. 2 The respondent appeared in the court and submitted written reply through his learned counsel.
5. An objection has been raised by the respondent that the instant complaint is time barred. On merits, the respondent has denied that any diesel was given to the complainant's car, however he has admitted that receipt No. 1583 dated 21.7.2009 is of Abbas Brothers Petroleum Service Multan.
6. He has alleged that all the receipts are fake and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
7. 3 In his evidence complainant produced his affidavit EX-P1, photocopy of legal notice EX-P2, postal receipt EX-P3, diesel receipt EX-P4, Toyota Motors Multan cash receipt EX-P 5, Toyota Motors Multan repair order/ sales tax invoice EX-P6, receipt dated 22.7.2009 EX-P7. Affidavit of Muhammad Bashir is EX-P8, affidavit of Shahid Mehmood EX-P9 and affidavit of Rab Nawaz is EX-P 10.
8. 4 The complainant appeared as PW1 and submitted his affidavit which is EX-P1. During cross examination the complainant PW1 stated that he was coming with his witnesses from Lodhran to Multan when he obtained fuel from the respondent's petrol pump for Rs. 300/-. He stated that on 22.7.2009 the car was attached with the cart and was brought to Toyota Motors Multan. He stated it incorrect to suggest that he did his routine work on 22.7.2009 and did not bring his car to Toyota Motors. He stated it incorrect to suggest that as per EX-P6 he handed over his car to the Toyota Motors on 23.7.2009. He stated it incorrect to suggest that he has fabricated wrong story on the asking of one Malik Saleem who is owner of another petrol pump. Muhammad Bashir appeared as PW2 and submitted his affidavit EX-P8.
9. During cross examination PW2 stated that on 21.7.2009 the complainant obtained diesel from the respondent petrol pump. On 22.7.2009 the car was attached with the cart and brought to Toyota Motors. He stated it incorrect to suggest that he is deposing falsely. Mr. Shahid Mehmood appeared as PW3 and submitted his affidavit which is EX-P9. During cross examination PW3 stated that on 21.7.2010 the petitioner obtained diesel from the respondent petrol pump. On 23.7.2010 the report was delivered to the complainant by the Toyota Motors and after that they went to Manager of the respondent petrol pump twice and thrice. He stated it incorrect to suggest that he is deposing falsely.
10. 5 On the statement of the learned counsel for the complainant the statement of PW4 (chief examination) was deleted as he was not available for cross examination.
11. 6 Mr. Ghulam Qadir appeared as RW1 being special attorney of the respondent and submitted his affidavit EX-R1. During cross examination RW1 has stated that Mr. Khizir Abbas is Proprietor of the Abbas Petroleum Service Multan and he is serving as his manager. He stated that at the respondent petrol pump four filling points are for petrol and two filling points are meant for diesel.
12. He stated it incorrect to suggest that on 21.7.2009 the complainant came on respondent petrol pump for obtaining diesel. He stated it incorrect to suggest that complainant came to him on the petrol pump with the instant complaint. He has stated that receipt EX-P4 shows to be of his petrol pump but does not contains the signatures of anybody from his staff. He further stated that generally the person who gives the petrol to the customer he sings the receipt. The power of attorney of RW1 is Mark A. He stated it incorrect to suggest that he is deposing falsely.
13. 7 On completion of their evidence learned counsel for the parties argued the case. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that due to negligence of the respondent the complainant suffered loss of Rs. 4,89,474/-. He argued that documentary as well as oral evidence produced by the complainant proves the case of the complainant and he prayed for acceptance of the instant case. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the complaint is badly time barred and the receipts produced by the complainant are fake. He prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
14. 8 Arguments heard, record perused.
15. 9 The main plea of the complainant is that he got diesel from the respondent but afterwards he came to know that the respondent staff had filled petrol in the tank of car which had diesel engine.
16. EX-P4 is receipt No. 1583 dated 21.7.2009 according to which diesel was sold out for Rs/.300/- EX-P4 has signatures of the person who issued the same. EX-P5 is Toyota Motors cash receipt which shows that the Toyota Motors Multan received an amount of Rs. 7474/- from the complainant. This receipt also shows a make of car of the complainant which is Toyota 2D Saloon. This receipt is also signed by the person who has prepared the same. EX-P6 is repair order/sales tax invoice of Toyota Motors in which following observations have been made " Wrong / Substandard quality fuel was causing the fuel pump damages" This clearly shows that the engine of the car of the complainant went out of order due to wrong / substandard fuel. EX-P6 contains detail of the amount of Rs.
17. 7474/-. EX-P4 is also singed by the service advisor. EX-P7 shows the detail of parts which have been purchased by the complainant for repair of the engine of the car which amounts to Rs. 5000/- only.
18. 10 On behalf of the respondent point of limitation has been raised that the instant complaint has been filed after the period of 30 days which is beyond the limitation period, however the complainant has also moved an application for extension of time which has been supported by his affidavit and no rebuttal has been produced by the respondent. The complaint in hand is within the period of 60 days. Therefore this is well within the time of limitation as the extension is allowed under section 5 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005. The respondent has also raised objection that no legal notice has been sent to him by the complainant in this regard. It is to be noted that the complainant sent a legal notice to the respondent and EX-P2 is its proof. EX-P3 is postal receipt through which the legal notice was issued to the respondent through registered post. So it is proved that the complainant has sent legal notice to the respondent before the filing of this complaint.
19. 11 From the oral as well as documentary evidence the complainant has successfully proved his case. Therefore the complaint in hand is hereby accepted with the direction that to the respondent to pay Rs. 300/- to the petitioner for the fuel which he obtained from the respondent petrol pump, Rs. 7474/- and Rs. 5000/- for repair of the engine. The complainant has claimed Rs. 9000/- as labor but in this regard he has produced no documentary evidence. Therefore this amount cannot be paid to the complainant. The complainant has claimed Rs. 4 laces for new engine but in this regard he has not produced any documentary evidence whether the present engine is in working position or not and whether it can be repaired or not and even otherwise he has not produced any documentary proof about the price of the new engine. Therefore this amount cannot be given to the complainant. The complainant has claimed Rs. 50000/- for the mental torture which he suffered due to wrong act of the respondent. Although he has not produced any documentary evidence in this regard, however it is commonly known that due to wrong acts one suffers mental torture. Therefore a token amount of Rs. 5000/- will be paid by the respondent to the petitioner for mental torture. Learned counsel for the complainant has also submitted his fee certificate which he received from the complainant for pursuing the instant complaint. Therefore the respondent is directed to pay the cost of the case to the complainant along with counsel fee. File be consigned to record room after its due completion. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.