National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S Sas Motors Ltd. vs Anant Haridas Choudhari on 24 July, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No. 2814 of 2011 (From the order dated 20.06.2011 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in Appeal no. 771 of 2006) M/s SAS Motors Ltd., B 14-20 Industrial Estate Baramati District Petitioner Pune Versus Anant Haridas Choudhari Atahrdi Tal Kalamb Respondent Osmanabad District BEFORE: HONBLE MR JUSTICE V B GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MRS REKHA GUPTA MEMBER For the Petitioner Mr Manan Batra, Advocate For the Respondent Mr Amol V Deshmukh, Advocate with Mr Dilip A Taur, Advocate Pronounced on 24th July 2013 ORDER
REKHA GUPTA Revision Petition no. 2814 of 2011 has been filed against the order dated 26.02.2011 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (the State Commission) in appeal no. 771 of 2006.
Complaint of the respondent/ complainant in brief is as follows:
Respondent no. 1 is a progressive farmer residing at Atahrdi Tal Kalamb District Osmanabad. Petitioner/ OP no. 2 manufactures and sells Angad tractors and is a sole distributor for Maharashtra and respondent no. 2/ OP 1 is the authorised dealer for selling this tractor. He paid Rs.1,09,500/- as a tractor cost and Rs.24,100/- as a cost of plough thus the total amount was Rs.1,33,600/- and he received a discount of Rs.2,600/-. Thus respondent no. 2 handed over this tractor by taking Rs.1,31,000/-. Respondent no. 2 had orally committed to one year free service and given free service card along with service manual. Respondent no. 1 observed so many defects after working in actual field and hence he took the tractor to the showroom of respondent no. 2 and on 16.02.2005. Respondent no. 1 requested respondent no. 2 to resolve all the defects in this tractor and to repair it. The residence of respondent no. 1 is at Athardi and distance from residence to showroom is 30 km thus the total to and fro is 60 km and respondent no. 1 has to travel 60 km every time for getting his tractor repaired and this leads to unnecessary expenses. After the purchase of tractor from respondent no. 2, from 23.02.2005 to 20.06.2005 for a total of 38 days, the tractor was lying idle at the show room of respondent no. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner, who was opposite party no. 2 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Osmanabad (the District Forum) confirmed that they had filed no reply before the District Forum and had chosen to go with the reply of OP 1. However, a reading of the District Forum order does not confirm this fact. The District Forums order dated 04.04.2006 only refers to the reply of respondent no. 1. The District Forum dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the respondent no. 1/ complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission. After perusing the records and hearing the counsels for the parties the State Commission considered the following points:
(i) Vehicle admittedly was taken to the respondent for repeated repairs immediately after purchase.
(ii) Instead of free servicing complainant was required to get the repaired vehicle for many defects.
(iii) It is admission of respondent that they tried to repair tractor by going to village of complainant. This itself shows that tractor was not of quality as advertised.
(iv) Respondent did not produce any evidence of expert to show that vehicle is at par. Neither made application before Forum to get inspected the tractor from the expert.
(v) Immediately after purchase of vehicle, complainant was compelled to take tractor to respondent many times for repairs. This fact shifts the burden on respondent to prove that though repairs were carried out they were not manufacturing defects.
(vi) Appellant many times approached for repairs then issued legal notice which was also not replied by respondent.
Appellant was constrained to leave the tractor with respondent as it was not in condition to use the same. Therefore, we are of the view that brand new tractor immediately after purchase was found to have manufacturing defects. This is unfair trade practice to supply the vehicle with defects. District Forum without appreciating the facts and circumstances, proceeded on the ground that tractor was used by unskilled person. IN the absence of any proof about it Forum decided complaint on assumptions and presumptions. We are therefore, quashing the said order. We are directing respondent to refund the price of tractor with 9% interest from the date of purchase.
The State Commission then passed the following order:
Hence, the appeal is allowed. Judgment and order passed by the District Forum is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent is directed to pay Rs.1,31,000/- with 9% interest from 09.02.2005 i.e., from the date of purchase. Respondent has to pay Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and cost.
Hence, the present revision petition.
The main grounds of the revision petition are as follows:
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had on its own without any satisfactory material on record, concluded that the said tractor was defective. It is pertinent to note here that the burden of proving any manufacturing defect in the said tractor was upon the respondent no. 1. It is reiterated that neither the complaint C R No. 217/ 2005 before the District Forum nor the appeal no. 771 of 2006 had placed on record any documentary evidence to show that the said tractor was suffering from any manufacturing defects as alleged or at all.
The State Commission erred in taking note of the normal wear and tear of the said tractor and misinterpreted the same as the defects in the said tractor.
We have heard the counsels and gone through the record.
It is an undisputed fact that while the tractor was purchased on 05.02.2005 and it was taken for repairs within 12 days i.e., 17.02.2005. As mentioned in the complaint from 23.02.2005 to 20.06.2005 the tractor remained in the show room of the petitioner for 38 days for repairs. The defects listed in the complaint are corroborated by the job cards placed on file. Respondent no. 2/OP no.1 was situated at a distance of 30 km from the residence of the petitioner and hence, the journey to show room and back was around 60 km so the respondent no. 1 would hardly make frivolous and unwarranted trips unless required. A perusal of the job cards indicated that on 17.02.2005 itself the customer had a complaint regarding broken lower link pin, oil leakage, clutch setting. All these were attended to. Thereafter there were complaints relating to lower link pin, clutch and the fact that the tractor was not moving even in gear also. After 20.04.2005, the water pump had to be changed, dynamo belt had also broken. On 05.05.2005, the alternator failed and had to be changed. On 10.05.2005, there was hydraulic arm oil leakage and the battery failed. The tyre rim of the front left side tyre had also to be changed.
Counsel for the petitioner stated that no expert opinion had been taken with regard to the manufacturing defects. When there were so many defects which started occurring within 12 days of purchase of the tractor and as the job cards confirmed that the same defects had to be rectified to by respondent no. 2, the facts speak for themselves.
In the circumstances, we find that no expert advice is required to be obtained by Respondent no.1. If the petitioner felt it was imperative he could have pleaded for the same before the State Commission.
In view of the foregoing reasons, we find that there is no jurisdictional error, illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission warranting our interference. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only).
Revision petitioner is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the respondent no. 1 directly by way of demand draft and the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- be deposited by way of demand draft in the name of Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission, within four weeks from today. In case the revision petitioner fails to deposit the said amount within the prescribed period, then it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum till realisation.
List on 30th August 2013 for compliance.
Sd/-
..
[ V B Gupta, J.] Sd/-
..
[Rekha Gupta] Satish