INDIAN OIL CORPN. LTD. vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Forum, Udaipur dated 6.12.1994 whereby the complaint filed by the respondent has been partly allowed and the appellant has been directed to supply to the complainant-respondent 7,696 ltrs. of petrol and to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as litigation costs.

FACTS relevant for disposal of this appeal in brief are that the respondent operates/distributes petrol from its establishment Motor Garage, Udaipur, which is supplied by the appellant Corporation. The Corporation has installed an underground petrol tank for this purpose at the aforesaid petrol pump/Motor Garage, Udaipur. It has been the case of the respondent that when the petrol is supplied by the appellant through its tankers, there is a possibility of waste of 1 per cent of petrol in the process of transportation and filling underground tank. When the respondent noticed shortage in the supply of the quantity of petrol by the appellant and shortage increased slowly and slowly from April, 1990 which went from 200-300 ltrs. to 500-600 ltrs. and ultimately upto an extent of 1000-1200 ltrs., the Divisional Manager of Motor Garage, Udaipur sent a letter to the appellant on 5.2.1991 to send someone to examine the variations. The Chargeman of the appellant came and inspected the delivery of petrol on 4.3.1991 which was found to be all right but the pipeline and ''decane'' pipe and bend pipe were found to have been rusted and holes were also found therein. About this state of affairs, the respondent repeatedly sent reminders to the appellant on 6.3.1991, 21.3.1991 and 9.4.1991. The appellant thereafter changed the pipeline but still the shortage and deficiency in the quantity of petrol continued. It was then apprehended that either the petrol is being supplied in lesser quantity through the tanker of the appellant or that the petrol storage underground tank had some leakage. To this effect, a letter was written by the respondent to the appellant on 21.5.1991 informing that this petrol pump was established in the year 1964 and it is possible that as per the past deficiencies observed in the shortage in quantity of petrol, it is possible that the cause of it may be something else then merely a damage to the supply pipeline. This was followed by letters dated 1.6.1991, 6.6.1991, 14.6.1991, 11.7.1991 and 3.8.1991 but the appellant did not pay any heed to them, although constant requests were made to send technical experts to find out the cause of supply of lesser quantity of petrol. It was only on 30.11.1991 that the appellant through its Contractor got the underground tank dug and after removal of sand around the underground storage tank, it was found that there was not only leakage in the underground storage tank but that a crack was also there at one place and at the bottom of it, there was also a hole. Coming to know about this stage, the petrol pump was closed and vide letter dated 6/16.12.1991, the appellant was requested to compensate for the amount which was paid to the appellant although the correct quantity of petrol was not made available by the appellant to the respondent. The respondent assessed such loss of petrol at 12,252 ltrs. and asserted that because of leakage and non-maintenance of the underground storage tank by the appellant, the State Government had to bear a loss of more than Rs. 2.00 lakhs. The respondent, therefore, advanced a claim by filing a complaint before the learned District Forum against the appellant to make good the loss of aforesaid quantity of petrol for which the State Government had to pay unnecessarily and claimed Rs. 20,000/- as compensation. The complaint was resisted by the appellant on a number of technical grounds, ascertaining that there was no deficiency on their part in the maintenance of the underground petrol storage tank and that no sooner the damage to the underground tank was noticed, immediate steps were taken for the replacement of a new underground storage tank. The appellant denied that the respondent had suffered any loss of Rs. 2.00 lakhs or that they are entitled for any relief whatsoever.

The learned District Forum after examining the matter in detail and taking into consideration the evidence tendered before it by both the parties, decreed the claim against the appellant to the extent indicated above.

THE appellant through this appeal has challenged the impugned order dated 6.12.1994 mainly on the ground that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there has been no deficiency on the part of the appellant in the maintenance of the underground storage tank and that he is not responsible to make good the loss alleged to be suffered by the respondent. We have given due thought and consideration to the material available on the record and detailed arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties. It may be stated at the outset that though the respondent had calculated the loss of 12,252 ltrs. of petrol and in the alternative has asked to be awarded an amount over Rs. 2.00 lakhs as the cost of the petrol unnecessarily paid to the appellant; yet even after the order of the learned District Forum directing the appellant to supply only 7,696 ltrs. of petrol to the respondent out of total quantity of 12,252 ltrs. claimed in the complaint, the respondent has not preferred any appeal.

BE that as it may, it is borne out from the material available on the record that the petrol pump at the Motor Garage at Udaipur was established in the year 1964 and the supply of petrol was to be made by the appellant on regular basis. Further, the underground storage tank was also provided by the appellant and embedded under the ground as per specifications and guidance of the appellant or its subordinates. The responsibility to maintain the underground petrol storage tank was also upon the appellant for which the respondent was required to make regular payments as prescribed by the appellant from time to time. It, therefore, is evident that though the petrol pump was operated at the Motor Garage at Udaipur by the respondent but the maintenance of the underground storage tank was the responsibility of the appellant. Further, none of the parties to this litigation have placed any document/agreement on the basis of which it can be ascertained as to what have been the terms and conditions on which the appellant was to supply petrol to the respondent regularly. Further it is not denied that the petrol pump at the Motor Garage at Udaipur was established in the year 1964 and that the underground petrol storage tank was also installed by them that time. It may be noted that although no material has been placed by the parties as to the durability or age of the underground petrol storage tank installed by the appellant but it can be presumed that the underground petrol storage tank may have given way after it was being constantly used to store petrol at the Motor Garage, Udaipur for a sufficiently long period of almost 26 years. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the direction given by the learned District Forum to the appellant to supply 7,696 ltrs. of petrol to the respondent for the loss/lesser quantity of petrol supplied by the appellant to the respondent is just and reasonable. The compensation awarded and the cost are also in consonance with the direction given to the appellant. Consequently, we affirm the finding of the learned District Forum that there has been a deficiency in rendering efficient service on the part of the appellant in the supply of petrol and that the loss occasioned due to leakage of the underground petrol storage tank is the result of deficiency on the part of the appellant. The order/direction given by the District Forum against the appellant, therefore, calls for no interference. The appeal, therefore, fails with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.