National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. S.A.S. Motors Ltd. vs H.S. Balakrishna & Ors. on 9 December, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No. 1943 OF 2008 (From the order dated 07.01.2008 in Appeal No.1908 of 2007 of the State Commission, Karnataka) M/s. S.A.S. Motors Ltd. B-14 to 20, Industrial Estate, Baramathi District, Maharashtra .Petitioner Versus H.S. Balakrishna S/o N. Shamanna, Hosagavi Village, Koppa Hobli, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District Karnataka 2. M/s. Chiranthana Tractor, Mandya Authorised Dealer for Angad Tractor M.K. Popaiah Building, Venkateshwar Rice Mill, Guthalu Road, Mandya- 571401, Karnataka 3. Shri H.M. Sadananda Secretary, Thandaveshwara Kahdi Gramodyoga Kaigarika, Sangha, Holalu, Mandya District, Dealer for Trailor Respondents
BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. JAIN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner :
Mr. Manan Batra, Advocate For the Respondents: Mrs. K.V. Bharathi, Advocate with Mr. A.K. Pandey, Advocate for R-1 PRONOUNCED ON: 9th December, 2014 PER MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER
1. Facts in brief are that the complainant, an agriculturist had purchased a tractor with trailer. OP No.1/S.A.S. Motors Ltd. was the manufacturer of the tractor and OP No.2 was the dealer who sold it with the trailer manufactured by OP No.3. Complainant allegedly found that the said tractor was unfit both for cultivation and for transportation. It was repaired several times by OP- No.2.
2. The District Forum appointed Senior Inspector of Motor Vehicle, Mandya District as Court Commissioner to inspect the tractor. It was inspected in the presence of OP-2. As per the Court Commissioner, the tractor could carry a load of 3810 kgs at a speed of 20 to 30 km per hour without brake down. He also found that two of the four power transmission belts were missing, engine oil was leaking and there was excessive play in the steering system.
3. A consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum, Mandya praying for replacement of the tractor or alternatively, to refund the price with Rs.50,000/- as compensation. Before the District Forum, the OPs 2 and 3 contested with common defense and OP-3 did not adduce any evidence. Considering the report of the Court Commissioner mentioned above, the District Forum ordered replacement of the tractor by a new one, together with compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.500/- .
4. OP-1/the manufacturer challenged the above order before the State Commission in Appeal no.1908/2007. The State Commission has considered the report of the Court Commissioner appointed by the District Forum in detail and on that basis has declined to interfere with the order of the District Forum.
5. Against dismissal of its appeal by State Commission OP-1 SAS Motors Limited, Baramathi, Maharashtra has filed this revision petition. The complainant as well as OP-2 & 3 have been impleaded as respondents. However, OPs
2 & 3 have been proceeded against, ex-parte. We have carefully considered the record as submitted by two sides and have heard learned counsel representing the revision petitioner and respondent No.1/Complainant. Delay of four days in filing the revision petition has been condoned.
6. During the course of these proceedings and considering the observations in the impugned order, the revision petitioner was also directed on 3.1.2008 to deposit a sum of Rs.75,000/- with the State Commission, subject to which operation of the impugned order was stayed. The counsel for the petitioner was directed to seek instructions whether the petitioner/SAS Motors Limited was willing to settle the dispute on payment of Rs.75,000/- to the Respondent/Complainant, as had been suggested by the State Commission. Subsequently, on 30.10.2009 Respondent /Complainant was permitted to withdraw half of the deposited amount. The records show that there has been no settlement.
7. Later, in the present proceedings, the two reports submitted by Regional Transport Officer, Mandya to the District Forum have been filed by the petitioner. The first one is dated 29.5.2007 and encloses the report of Hanumanthappa Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector and the second one is of 28.7.2007, enclosing another report from the same Inspector.
8. The case of the revision petitioner/OP-1 is that the District Forum and the State Commission have ignored the first report of the Court Commissioner, which showed that the tractor was working satisfactorily. The first report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector clearly states that haulage test could not be completed as the transmission belts of the tractor had failed. In the second report dated 28.7.2007, the same Motor Vehicle Inspector has conducted the haulage test and sent its report. It is thus abundantly clear that these two documents are not to be read as two separate reports but as two parts of the same report. The second was necessitated as the haulage test had remained incomplete on the first occasion due to failure of transmission belts. We therefore find no substance in this contention of the petitioner.
9. As per the above reports, field test of the tractor with the cultivator showed that beyond a depth of 20 mm to 30 mm the rear wheels of the tractor started slipping. In our view, this comment of the expert is quite in line with the allegation in the complaint that in three months of use, the tractor was found to be most unfit for cultivation and that it was taken for repairs on a number of occasions. Interestingly, the Written Statement of OPs 1 and 2 before the District Forum, itself says that their tractor is a replacement for a bullock cart and is therefore low priced ! It is an indirect admission of the fact that it was a substandard machine.
10. From the examination above it is clear that findings of fact reached by fora below are based on correct appreciation of the evidence on record. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error which could justify our intervention in exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Consequently, RP No.1943 of 2008 is dismissed for want of merit. However, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the petitioner to refund the price charged for the tractor with 9% interest per annum from the date of the Complaint, in lieu of its replacement.
The amount released to the Complainant during the course of these proceedings, if any, shall be adjusted against the same. The Revision Petitioner/OP No.1 will in turn be entitled to receive the old tractor from the Respondent No.1/Complainant. No costs.
Sd/-.
(D.K. JAIN, J.) PRESIDENT Sd/-.
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER S./-