State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Irugurala Laxmi, vs M/S. Shakti Farm Machinery, on 23 August, 2013
BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. CCIA 273 of 2013 in CC 109/2012 Between Irugurala Laxmi, D/o. Late Poshaiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Self Employment, H.No. 1-96, Village & Mandal, Choppadandi, Karimnagar Dist 505 415. *** Petitioner/ Complainant And 1. M/s. Shakti Farm Machinery, 5-7-28, (MIG 1537), Opp: VITS Eng College, By-pass Road, Karimnagar 505 001. Rep by its Managing Partner Sri N. Narsinga Rao. 2. M/s. Kubota Agricultural Machinery India Pvt Ltd., No. 15, Meda Vakkam Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. Tamil Nadu. Rep by its Managing Director. *** Respondents/ Opposite Parties. CCIA 274 of 2013 in CC 110/2012 Between Pathem Padma, D/o. Laxmirajam, Mallapur Village, Dharmaram Mandal, Karimnagar Dist 505 416. *** Petitioner/ Complainant And 1. M/s. Shakti Farm Machinery, 5-7-28, (MIG 1-537), Opp: VITS Eng College, By-pass Road, Karimnagar 505 001. Rep by its Managing Partner Sri N. Narsinga Rao. 2. M/s. Kubota Agricultural Machinery India Pvt Ltd., No. 15, Meda Vakkam Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. Tamil Nadu. Rep by its Managing Director. *** Respondents/ Opposite Parties. CCIA 275 of 2013 in CC 111/2012 Between Inreddy Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Late Linga Reddy, Kodimyal Village & Mandal, Karimnagar 505 501. *** Petitioner/ Complainant And 1. M/s. Shakti Farm Machinery, 5-7-28, (MIG 1537), Opp: VITS Eng College, By-pass Road, Karimnagar 505 001. Rep by its Managing Partner Sri N. Narsinga Rao. 2. M/s. Kubota Agricultural Machinery India Pvt Ltd., No. 15, Meda Vakkam Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. Tamil Nadu. Rep by its Managing Director. *** Respondents/ Opposite Parties. CCIA 276 of 2013 in CC 112/2012 Between Bandari Rayudu, S/o. Veeraiah, H.No. 1-180, Marlawada Village, Choppadandi Mandal, Karimnagar Dist 505 415. *** Petitioner/ Complainant And 1. M/s. Shakti Farm Machinery, 5-7-28, (MIG 1537), Opp: VITS Eng College, By-pass Road, Karimnagar 505 001. Rep by its Managing Partner Sri N. Narsinga Rao. 2. M/s. Kubota Agricultural Machinery India Pvt Ltd., No. 15, Meda Vakkam Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. Tamil Nadu. Rep by its Managing Director. *** Respondents/ Opposite Parties. CCIA 277 of 2013 in CC 113/2012 Between Gantala Vijaya, W/o. Srinivas Reddy, Arnakonda Village, Choppadandi Mandal, Karimnagar Dist 505 415. *** Petitioner/ Complainant And 1. M/s. Shakti Farm Machinery, 5-7-28, (MIG 1537), Opp: VITS Eng College, By-pass Road, Karimnagar 505 001. Rep by its Managing Partner Sri N. Narsinga Rao. 2. M/s. Kubota Agricultural Machinery India Pvt Ltd., No. 15, Meda Vakkam Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. Tamil Nadu. Rep by its Managing Director. *** Respondents/ Opposite Parties. Counsel for the Petitioner M/s. V. Gouri Shankara Rao Counsel for the Respondents M/s. V. Srihari (R1) M/s. P. Raja Sripathi Rao CORAM: SMT. M. SHREESHA, PRESIDING MEMBER
& SRI S. BHUJANGA RAO, MEMBER FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN Oral Order: ( Per Smt. M. Shreesha, Member ) ***
1) All the above applications are disposed of by this common order and CCIA No. 273/2013 in CC No. 109/2012 is taken as lead case.
2) This is an application filed by the complainant u/s 151 of C.P.C. praying to direct the respondents/opposite parties to cause production of Product Concern Reports of the harvester of the complainant from the date of purchase till the date of filing the complaint on the ground that the harvester purchased by her on 3.2.2010 through Op1 manufactured by Op2 by paying an amount of Rs. 21,75,000/- had suffered inherent manufacturing defects relating to engine, gear box, crawler etc. The petitioner/complainant submits that the engine was repaired on 1.5.2011 and the crawler was replaced on seven occasions. She further contended that assemble transmission was repaired and replaced nearly on eight occasions. The opposite parties modified and replaced the parts four times. She submits that as on the date of filing of the complaint the harvester was held up for 30 months.
3) The petitioner/complainant submits that the opposite parties maintain a separate Product Concern Report for each and every harvester whenever the harvester was taken to Op1 for repairs. It shows the nature of defects, the action taken by the Ops etc. She submits that all the PCRs are computerized and are available with the opposite parties and they are required for better adjudication of the matter.
4) R1/Op1 filed counter denying the allegations made by the complainant and contended that this Commission has no jurisdiction. It being the dealer rendered after sales service to the harvester and they maintained the job cards and the record pertaining to replacement of parts under warranty etc. R1/Op1 contended that whatever the record maintained by it was handed over to Op2 on receipt of notice in the complaint. R1/Op1 submits that the petitioner may be directed to approach Op2 to cause production of documents sought for by the complainant they being the dealer will not be having the records. Therefore it prayed that the petition be dismissed against R1/Op1.
5) R2/Op2 filed counter contending that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. They submit that for the averments made by the complainant they suitably replied in the counter filed by Op2. They contended that instead of relying on the documents filed by her, the complainant is trying to make out the case on the strength of documents now sought for in this application. It is contrary to law. As and when the harvester was brought to Op1 it was attended to and rectified the alleged defects to the satisfaction of the petitioner/complainant. The petitioner/complainant has to prove her case on her own strength instead of relying upon the defence of the Ops. R2/Op2 further submits that as there are complicated questions of fact and law are involved they cannot be tried summarily. The petitioner/complainant has not made out any case which warrants this Commission to direct the Ops to cause production of documents sought for in this application. This Commission has no jurisdiction to order the same.
6) The point for consideration is whether this Commission has power to cause production of documents?
7) The petitioner/complainant filed CC 109/2012 alleging that the harvester purchased by her on 3.2.2010 through Op1 manufactured by Op2 by paying an amount of Rs. 21,75,000/-
had suffered inherent manufacturing defects relating to engine, gear box, crawler etc. According to her it has been causing one trouble or the other from the date of its purchase. She could not make use of the same for the past thirty months, and therefore sought for refund of cost of the harvester at Rs. 21,75,000/- with interest and reimburse premium of Rs.
24,000/- together with loss of earnings, compensation and costs.
8) We observe from the record that though the Opposite Parties filed their counter they did not file any documents except the warranty terms, operating manual and the machine installation report. The complainant filed her affidavit evidence and also filed Product Concern Reports six in number and also a sheet containing the particulars of various job cards under which repairs were carried out and the amount incurred thereof vide Annexures-1 to 6 in addition to the documents filed along with the complaint. As seen from Annexure-6 there are approximately 70 job cards issued by Shakti Farm Machinery on various dates for carrying out the necessary repairs or rectification of defects. It is clear that whatever Product Concern Reports issued to the complainant were filed by her but the opposite parties did not file the jobs cards as shown in Annexure-6.
9) It is pertinent to note that Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act reads as follows:
(4) For the purposes of this section, the District Forum shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:
(i) the summoning and enforcing the attendance of any defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath;
(ii) the discovery and production of any document or other material object producible as evidence;
(iii) the reception of evidence on affidavits;
(iv) the requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test from the appropriate laboratory or from any other relevant source;
(v) issuing of any commission for the examination of any witness, and
(vi) any other matter which may be prescribed.
It is very clear from the above Section 13(4)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act that the Dist. Forum/State Commission or the National Commission as the case may, have the powers to issue directions for production of documents.
10) In the case of Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors. vs Nirmala Devi and Ors in Civil Appeal nos. 4912- 4913 of 2011 decided on 4th July 2011 the Honble Supreme Court has held that:
Pleadings are foundation of the claims of parties. Civil litigation is largely based on documents. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the trial judge to carefully scrutinize, check and verify the pleadings and the documents filed by the parties. This must be done immediately after civil suits are filed.
The court should resort to discovery and production of documents and interrogatories at the earliest according to the object of the Act. If this exercise is carefully carried out, it would focus the controversies involved in the case and help the court in arriving at truth of the matter and doing substantial justice
11) In the light of the fact that the documents sought for by the complainant are relating to the harvester of the complainant which is the subject matter before us, and that they are only job cards/ Product Concern Reports, we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice and for better adjudication of the matter, we direct the opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally to cause production of all the original Job Cards/ Product Concern Reports relating to the complainant harvester before this Commission by 23.9.2013.
12) This petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.
1) _______________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER
2) ________________________________ MEMBER 23/08/2013 *pnr UP LOAD O.K. UP LOAD O.K.