State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Sas Motors Ltd vs Shri Mhasku Kalu Bokade & Ors. on 16 August, 2012
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/10/704
(Arisen out of Order Dated 26/05/2010 in Case
No. 269/2007 of District Satara)
1.M/S SAS MOTORS LTD 117/A SAINIK FARMS DEFENCE ENCLAVE NEW DELHI , FACTORY AT B-14 TO 20 INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BHIGWAN ROAD BARAMATI PUNE MAHARASHTRA ...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. SHRI MHASKU KALU BOKADE R/AT ANDORI TAL KHANDALA SATARA MAHARASHTRA
2. M/S SHREERAM TRACTORS NEAR MADHUDEEP HOTEL SHINGNAPUR ROAD PHALTAN SATARA MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/10/705 (Arisen out of Order Dated 26/05/2010 in Case No. 270/2007 of District Satara)
1. M/S SAS MOTORS LTD 117/A SAINIK FARMS DEFENCE ENCLAVE NEW DELHI, FACTORY AT B-14 TO 20 INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BHIGWAN ROAD BARAMATI PUNE MAHARASHTRA ...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. SHRI SUBHASH MARUTI NALAWADE R/AT ALJAPUR TAL KHANDALA SATARA MAHARASHTRA
2. M/S SHREEM MOTORS NEAR MADHUDEEP HOTELSSHINGNAPUR ROAD PAHLTAN SATARA MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/10/706 (Arisen out of Order Dated 26/05/2010 in Case No. 271/2007 of District Satara)
1. M/S SAS MOTORS LTD 117/A SAINIK FARMS DEFENCE ENCLAVE NEW DELHI FACTORY AT B-14 TO 20 INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BHIGWAN ROAD BARAMATI PUNE MAHARASHTRA ...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. SHRI BAJRANG RAMCHANDRA JADHAV R/AT SALAPE TAL PHALTAN SATARA MAHARASHTRA
2. M/S SHREERAM MOTORS NEAR MADHUDEEP HOTEL SHINGNAPUR ROAD PAHLTAN SATARA MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/10/707 (Arisen out of Order Dated 26/05/2010 in Case No. 272/2007 of District Satara)
1. M/S SAS MOTORS LTD 117/A SAINIK FARMS DEFENCE ENCLAVE NEW DELHI FACTORY AT B-14 TO 20 INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BHIGWAN ROAD BARAMATI PUNE MAHARASHTRA ...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. SHRI RAMCHANDRA DADASAHEB SHIRKE R/AT DIVADI TAL MAAN SATARA MAHARASHTRA
2. M/S SHREERAM TRACTORS NEAR MADHUDEEP HOTEL SHINGANAPUR ROAD PAHLTAN SATARA MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/10/708 (Arisen out of Order Dated 26/05/2010 in Case No. 273/2007 of District Satara)
1. M/S SAS MOTORS LTD 117/A SAINIK FARMS DEFENCE ENCLAVE NEW DELHI FACTORY AT B-14 TO 20 INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BHIGWAN ROAD BARAMATI PUNE MAHARASHTRA ...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. SHRI RAMCHANDRA SHRIPATI BHOSALE R/AT LONAND TAL KHANDALA SATARA MAHARASHTRA
2. M/S SHREERAM TRACTORS NEAR MADHUDEEP HOTEL SHINGNAPUR ROAD PAHLTAN SATARA MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/10/709 (Arisen out of Order Dated 26/05/2010 in Case No. 274/2007 of District Satara)
1. M/S SAS MOTORS LTD 117/A SAINIK FARMS DEFENCE ENCLAVE NEW DELHI FACTORY AT B-14 TO 20 INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BHIGWAN ROAD BARAMATI PUNE MAHARASHTRA ...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. SHRI BABAN NAGU JAGTAP R/AT MORVE TAL KHANDALA SATARA MAHARASHTRA
2. M/S SHREERAM TRACTORS NEAR MADHUDEEP HOTELS SHINGANPUR ROAD PAHTAN SATARA MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/10/710 (Arisen out of Order Dated 26/05/2010 in Case No. 275/2007 of District Satara)
1. M/S SAS MOTORS LTD 117/A SAINIK FARMS DEFENCE ENCLAVE NEW DELHI, FACTORY AT B-14 TO 20 INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BHIGWAN ROAD BARAMATI PUNE MAHARASHTRA ...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. SHRI KISAN DADU DHAYGUDE BALU PATILS WADI TAL KHANDALA SATARA MAHARASHTRA
2. M/S SHREERAM TRACTORS NEAR MADHUDEEP HOTELS SHINGNAPUR ROAD PAHLTAN SATARA MAHARASHTRA
3. MRS AMRJEET KAUR S AGARWAL R/AT NL- 5/10/14 GANGOTRI APT 3 RD FLOOR SECTOR 3 NERUL NAVI MUMBAI 400706 THANE MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/10/711 (Arisen out of Order Dated 26/05/2010 in Case No. 276/07 of District Satara)
1. M/S SAS MOTORS LTD 117/A SAINIK FARMS DEFENCE ENCLAVE NEW DELHI, FACTORY AT B-14 TO 20 INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BHIGWAN ROAD BARAMATI PUNE MAHARASHTRA ...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. NAMEDEO K SHELKE R/AT NIMBODI TAL KHANDALA SATARA MAHARASHTRA
2. M/S SHRERAM TRACTORS NEAR MADHUDEEP HOTEL SHINGNAPUR ROAD PAHLTAN SATARA MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/10/712 (Arisen out of Order Dated 26/05/2010 in Case No. 277/2007 of District Satara)
1. M/S SAS MOTORS LTD 117/A SAINIK FARMS DEFENCE ENCLAVE NEW DELHI, FACTORY AT B-14 TO 20 INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BHIGWAN ROAD BARAMATI PUNE MAHARASHTRA ...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. SHRI POPAT BIRU DADAS R/AT PADEGAON TAL KHANDALA SATARA MAHARASHTRA
2. M/S SHREERAM TRACTORS NEAR MADHU DEEP HOTELS SHINGANPUR PAHLTAN SATARA MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'ABLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member PRESENT:
S B KHURJEKAR , Advocate for the Appellant Mr.Hemant Nigde Deshmukh, Advocate a/w.Ms.Shubhangi Nikam, Advocate for respondent No.1.
None present for respondent No.2.
ORDER Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar, Honble Member These are nine appeals filed by the appellant against the common order dated 26/05/2010 in consumer complaint Nos.269to277/2007.
2. The facts leading to these appeals can be summarsied as under :-
All the original complainants are the agriculturists. Opponent No.1 is a tractor manufacturing company and opponent No.2 is the dealer. All the original complainants have purchased the tractors of Angad Company manufactured by opponent No.1-S.A.S. Motors Ltd. from opponent No.2 who is authorized dealer. It is the allegations of the complainants that at the time of purchase of the tractors, opponent No.2 had stated them that the tractor is ideal for agricultural purposes. They have given them guarantee and warrantee also.
However, when they have started using the tractor for ploughing, it has not given satisfactory result. The diesel consumption was more than promised by the manufacturer and parts of the tractors were duplicate. At the time of using the tractors, they came across the manufacturing defects of the tractors. They have pointed out the defects to opponent No.2 and opponent No.2 sometimes repaired the tractors and many time denied the repairs.
They alleged that they have been deceived by opponent No.2. They have taken the matter to Grahak Panchayat and before the Grahak Panchayat opponents admitted the defects of the tractors and promised to change the same.
However, they have not changed the tractors. Because of defective tractors they have been put to a financial loss and mental agony. Hence, they have filed consumer complaints praying that price they have paid for purchasing the tractors be returned with interest and they should be paid an amount of `3 Lakhs as compensation and `3 Lakhs for mental agony.
3. Opponent No.1 had contested the complaints by filing written version. Opponent No.1 stated that while purchasing the tractors, the complainants were given warrantee of one year. Opponent No.1 further submitted that they have never admitted that tractors are having manufacturing defects. Opponent No.1 further pointed out that during warrantee period, the complainants have not pointed out any complaint about the tractors. Opponent No.1 further stated that the tractors had been tested by Automotive Research Association of India (hereinafter referred to as ARAI) and certified that the tractors are as per standards and they have given certificate for that. Opponent No.1 further pointed out their Angad Tractors were purchased by nearly 100 agriculturists. However, there is no complaint. Therefore, opponent No.1 prayed that complaints may please be dismissed.
4. Opponent No.2 had also filed written version and resisted the complaints. Opponent No.2 had stated that he is a dealer of said tractors and at the time of purchase of tractors, he had given warrantee of one year. Being a dealer, he sells the tractor and as a dealer he is supposed to provide service when required. He further stated that the complainants had purchased the tractors after taking a test-ride. He further stated that during the warrantee period, complainants have not made any complaint regarding the tractors. He further stated that after sale of the tractors, he has provided necessary services to the complainants. Opponent No.2 had also raised point of limitation and stated that on the point of limitation the complaints may please be dismissed.
5. During hearing of the complaints, the complainants have filed application for appointment of the Commissioner for verification of the tractors and after hearing both the parties, District Forum was pleased to appoint Executive Engineer (Mechanical Division), Satara, as Commissioner to verify whether there is any manufacturing defect in the tractors. Aggrieved by the order, opponent No.1 had filed Revision Petition before the State Commission and the State Commission after hearing both the parties allowed the Revision Petition setting aside the order passed by District Forum directing to send one tractor to the Vehicle Research and Development Establishment, Ahmednagar for testing at the costs of both the parties. However, VRDE informed the District Forum that there is no facility with them and requested to avail the facility available at Central Farm Machinery Training and Testing Institute, Budhani (M.P.). However, the original complainants refused to send the tractors. Aggrieved by the order, the present appellant filed Revision Petition. The Revision Petition was allowed by the State Commission directing the District Forum to send two tractors to Budhani (MP) for inspection. District Forum after going through the complaints, written versions filed by the opponents, evidence filed by both parties on affidavits and pleadings of the Advocates has partly allowed the complaints directing the opponent Nos.1&2 to pay to the complainants `50,000/- each and costs of `10,000/- within period of 30 days from the date of order.
Aggrieved by this order, opponent No.1 had filed these appeals challenging the order.
6. Since, all the appeals involved common question of law and facts and the parties being one and the same, all the appeals are clubbed together and common order is passed.
7. We heard Mr.S.B. Khurjekar, Advocate for the appellants and Mr.Hemant Nigade-Deshmukh, Advocate a/w. Ms.Shubhangi Nikam, Advocate for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 remained absent though duly served.
8. Admittedly, respondent No.1 in all the appeals had purchased Angad Tractors manufactured by the appellant from respondent No.2 who is authorized dealer. It is allegation of respondent No.1 in all the appeals is that all the tractors are having manufacturing defects. District Forum had appointed Executive Engineer (Mechanical Division), Satara, as Commissioner for giving report whether tractors had any manufacturing defects. The order was challenged by the appellant in Revision and the State Commission vide its order dated 07/04/2008 set aside the order appointing Executive Engineer (Mechanical Division), Satara and directed to send initially, one tractor to Vehicle Research and Development Establishment (VRDE), Ahmednagar for testing at the costs of both the parties. The complainants were directed to take tractor to VRDE, Ahmednagar. Initially, both the parties were directed to deposit `10,000/- each in the District Forum and District Forum was directed to transmit the amount to VRDE, Ahmednagar. This order has not been challenged by both the parties and hence, it was obligatory on both the parties to abide by the order. However, VRDE, Ahmedngar by letter dated 29/07/2008 informed the District Forum that they are not having necessary facility to test the tractor for Field Performance and Haulage Tests as per ISO 9253 : 2001 and that tractor in question should be sent to Central Farm Machinery Training and Testing Institute, Budhani, M.P. Accordingly, complainants had filed an application not to send tractor to Budhani, M.P. and District Forum had allowed that application vide order dated 10/10/2008. Aggrieved by said order, appellants have filed Revision Petition to the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing both the parties set aside the order of the District Forum and District Forum was directed to send any two of the tractors belonging to the complainants to Central Farm Machinery Training and Testing Institute, Budhani, M.P. for inspection and report about the manufacturing defects. It was also made clear that tractors be sent at the costs of revision petitioners i.e. appellants and accordingly, follow-up action was to be taken by the District Forum. However, follow-up action has not been taken by the District Forum. Since, this is a case of farmers, we have called all the original record from the District Forum.
9. Learned District Forum had relied on the report of Government of India, Ministry of Agricultural No.42/02-MY(I&P) dated 21/08/2006. It shows the undersigned is directed to say that model Angad 240D Tractor vide Test Report No.T-546/1037 released in April 2006 meets requirement of minimum performance of standards with PTO power restricted to 13 KW against the initial specification of 16 KW through PTO shaft and it has recommended with modified specification for consideration by NABARD for Institutional Finance. Copy of the Test Report along with performance analysis of the said tractor based on MPS is sent herewith. The tractor is not recommended for wetland cultivation by the Manufacturer. The Learned District Forum had passed its observation that the tractor is not recommended for wetland cultivation by the manufacturer. However, District Forum had not taken pains to note whether tractor was used for wetland. Unfortunately, there is no evidence on this point. Learned District Forum had also observed that during warranty period, respondent No.1 had not filed any complaint and not produced any evidence about loss suffered because of defective tractors and allowed the complaints for mental agony and costs of the complaints.
10. Despite of the orders given by this Commission in Revision Petitions, District Forum miserably failed to follow-up the orders passed by this Commission. Legally speaking to prove manufacturing defects is the legal responsibility of respondent No.1 which they have not discharged. We heard respondent No.1 individually when they are alleging manufacturing defects in the tractors and the District Forum had not given any observations on the point. However, they have not been guided properly. We are very sorry for that. However, we cannot overlook the facts that the alleged manufacturing defect is not established. When the manufacturing defect is not established, there is no deficiency on the part of the appellants. The order passed by the District Forum is erroneous and needs to be set aside. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. All appeals bearing Nos.704 to 712/2010 are allowed. The order of the District Forum dated 26/05/2010 is set aside.
Consequently, complaint Nos.269 to 277/2007 are hereby dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Record & Proceedings be sent back to the District Forum.
4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced Dated 16th August 2012.
[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'ABLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member dd