-1- 2025:CGHC:48003 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 671 of 2018 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. A Government Of India Enterprise, Head Office-17, Jamshed Ji Tata Road Mumbai Maharashtra Through Chief Regional Manager Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd Regional Office Madina Building, Jail Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus Mukesh Agarwal S/o Late Madanlal Agrawal, Aged About 45 Years R/o G.E. Road Bus Stand Charoda, Bhilai, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 18/09/2025 1. This appeal is filed by appellant-defendant challenging legality and sustainability of the order dated 03.10.2018 passed by learned Second Additional District Judge to the Court First Additional District Judge, Durg (CG) in Civil Suit No. 10020000712-B/2013 whereby learned trial allowed the suit filed by plaintiff/respondent and awarded sum of Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.10.14 10:13:58 +0530 -2- Rs.1,32,662.29/- against the fuel (petrol, power petrol, diesel, turbojet diesel) remaining balance in underground tank of petrol pump which the plaintiff was running prior to date of cancelling the dealership awarded in his favour. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submits that in this appeal he is not raising any factual dispute as to allotment of dealership in favour of plaintiff/respondent earlier on 24.02.2005 and cancellation of dealership on 21.12.2009. Allotment of temporary dealership in favour of third person, after cancellation of dealership of plaintiff, and handing over the remaining fuel available in the underground tank after preparing panchnama is also not disputed. He contended that the panchnama prepared for taking over possession of the remaining fuel in the underground tank was also signed by representative of plaintiff/respondent. He is only challenging in this appeal the award of amount towards petrol which is mentioned as 1183 litres and calculating total amount of petrol by taking value of petrol as Rs.40.50 per liter which was prevailing in the year 2009. He submits that in the panchnama Ex.P-2 prepared for taking over possession of properties situated over ground and underground in the premises of petrol pump, at the time of measurement of underground fuel available in the petrol tanks, officer of the oil company found that in that tank only 4 cm liquid was available. It is contended that in underground tank sometimes it happens that water penetrates in the underground tank of fuel and therefore for measuring fuel, first according to procedure water level in the tank is to be measured by applying the chemical over dip-rod. At the time of measuring liquid available in the petrol tank, while testing -3- whether water is penetrated or not at the time of measuring water level, liquid is recorded as 4 cm and water level is also mentioned as 4 cm. In other underground tank of power petrol, diesel and turbojet diesel, person who measured tank has recorded water level as zero which clearly shows that in other tanks, person who measured the available fuel did not find water, but for the fuel tank of petrol. As in the petrol tank there was no petrol available but for water , learned trail Court erred in assessing sum of Rs. 47,911 (1183 x 40.50 per liter) as amount to be paid against petrol. He contended that appellant company was not having any objection to pay amount towards fuel, if the liquid available in the underground petrol tank was petrol but objection is that there was no petrol but for water in the petrol tank. Learned trial Court fell into error in not appreciating panchnama Ex.P-2 in an appropriate manner when contents of panchnama is not put to challenge. The document of panchnama is submitted by plaintiff himself in support of pleading of the plaint. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would oppose the submission of learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and would submit that in the plaint, plaintiff has clearly pleaded the quantity of fuel available in underground tank including petrol and has claimed total amount of Rs.2,17,194/- . He contended that if the amount of petrol as per submission of learned counsel for the appellant is to be deducted then it will come to Rs.1,32,662.29 and as learned trial Court has already not considered the petrol of 1183 litres for awarding the amount against petrol therefore there is no merit in this appeal and it is to be dismissed. -4- 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant-company would submit that chart which is prepared by learned trial Court in impugned order is based on claim made by the plaintiff in his plaint mentioning value of petrol and other fuels per litre at the rate prevailing in the year 2012 and not of 2009 on which the possession of the fuel was taken over by the appellant company. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of trial Court. 6. Perusal of the plaint would show that plaintiff in the plaint has specifically pleaded the available fuel in the tank which is mentioned as petrol- 04 c.m.; power petrol – 10 c.m.; diesel -05 cm. , turbojet diesel - 09 c.m. and volume of fuel/liquid in litres are -1183, 676, 934 and 677 litres respectively. Value claimed against the fuel remaining on the date of taking over possession is also mentioned as petrol – Rs.71/- per litre, power petrol- Rs.73.50/- per litre, diesel -Rs.51/- per litre and turbojet diesel -Rs.53/- per litre and accordingly claimed Rs.217194/- from defendant. To support the pleading made in the plaint as mentioned above plaintiff in evidence has submitted panchnama Ex.P- 2 to show the quantity of fuel available and taken over possession by defendant /appellant. Plaintiff has not disputed the panchnama prepared, on the ground that it was not correctly prepared or there was some irregularity committed by the person who has measured the underground fuel available in the underground tank, but he placed reliance upon the said document and contents as mentioned therein. 7. In the aforementioned facts of case when Ex.P-2 i.e. panchnama of -5- taking over possession of properties of petrol pump is not in dispute, to consider the dispute which is raised in this appeal with regard to availability of petrol in the underground petrol tank, I find it appropriate to extract relevant portion as recorded in the panchnama of availability of fuel in which (MS) is mentioned as 4 cm and water level of which is also mentioned as 4 cm. Petrol is also known as Motor Spirit and therefore aforementioned column relates to petrol. Thereafter, in second entry- (power)- 10 cm, water level- (0), then third entry- diesel (HSD) 5 cm, water level (0), then diesel (turbojet)- 9 cm water level (0) . 8. From the aforementioned entries of fuels available in underground tank as mentioned in panchnama Ex.P-2 relied upon by plaintiff would clearly show that in other three fuels except petrol, water level has been shown as ‘0’ whereas in the petrol tank availability of fuel/liquid is mentioned as 4 cm and water level is 4 cm, from which it is appearing that at the time of preparing panchnama taking over possession of underground fuel there was no petrol but for water in the underground tank. 9. It is also the case of appellant that while initiating procedure of measurement of fuel, first, by applying chemical on the dip rod, it is tested as to whether water is penetrated in fuel tank or not and thereafter total fuel available in tank. This submission is not disputed as the panchnama prepared is not challenged in fact relied upon by the plaintiff. Once a document is relied upon by one party accepting all contents made therein it is to be read as a whole. -6- 10. Plaintiff would be entitled for amount against fuel which was available and taken over possession by appellant- defendant and he will not be entitled for any amount for any other liquid like water. 11. In the light of the said document when submission of learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff is considered wherein during course of argument learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent has made submission that learned trial Court has already deducted the quantity of 1183 litres of petrol and has computed the amount to be awarded to plaintiff is considered, computation which is made by learned trial Court is based on price of fuel prevailing in the year 2009 and amount is also mentioned as Rs.40.50 per litre for petrol. However, he submits that sum of Rs.1,32,662.29 is awarded after deducting the amount of petrol for 1183 litres and therefore further deduction is not permissible which in the opinion of this Court, considering the extract of chart in para-3 of the impugned judgment and calculation made by learned trial Court in para-11 is not correct. Chart mentioned in para-3 based on pleadings made in the plaint would show that value of fuel is shown to be much on higher side and further according to pleadings made in plaint is of rate prevailing in the year 2012 whereas learned trial Court has awarded amount against fuel available at the time of taking over possession i.e. 21.12.2009 and accordingly with a reduce rate which were prevailing on the date of taking over possession. Perusal of finding recorded in para-11 of learned trial Court it appears that learned trial Court has also awarded Rs.47,911/- towards 1183 litres of petrol which in fact according to document relied upon by plaintiff, petrol was not available in the underground tank and, therefore, -7- amount awarded towards petrol to plaintiff/respondent is to be deducted from total amount calculated by learned trial Court as Rs.1,32,662.29. Accordingly, after deducting Rs.47,911/- from Rs.1,32,662.29, plaintiff/ respondent will be entitled for sum of Rs.84,751/-(rounded off). It is ordered accordingly. 12. For the foregoing discussions, impugned judgment and decree is modified and it is held that plaintiff/ respondent will be entitled to get sum of Rs. Rs.84,751/- which is against power petrol- 676 litres, diesel- 934 litres, turbojet diesel 677 litres to be calculated by Rs. 43.78 per litre of power petrol, Rs.33.39 per litre of diesel and Rs.35.51 per litre of turbo jet diesel. 13.Perusal of the order dated 20.12.2018 would show that pursuant to interim order, appellant- company was directed to deposit Rs.1 lakh. Learned counsel for the appellant-company would submit that in compliance of interim order, company has already deposited Rs.1 lakh. 14.In the aforementioned facts of case, amount already deposited by appellant- company shall be adjusted from the total amount as computed in this judgment and decree, and balance amount be returned to appellant, if the deposit is still lying with the Court or else appellant/defendant is held entitled to recover excess amount deposited by it. 15. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Let a decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen