State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mittal Automotives, vs 1. Swapnil S/O. Sanjay Jaiswal on 7 July, 2011
F.A. No.:423,457-10
1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
Date of filing : 12.07.2010
Date of Order: 07.07.2011
(1)
FIRST APPEAL NO.: 423 OF 2010
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 658 OF 2009
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: DHULE
Mittal Automotives,
Authorized Dealer of Sonalika Tractors,
123, Malegaon Road, Dhule,
Through its Proprietor,
Shri. Sunil S/o. Nandlal Agrawal,
R/o. Tq. & Dist. Dhule. ...Appellant
-Versus-
1. Swapnil S/o. Sanjay Jaiswal
R/o. Ner, Tq. & Dist. Dhule.
2. International Tractors Ltd.,
Village Chak Gujran, P.O.
Pimplanwala0146022, Jalandhar Road,
Hoshiyarpur, Punjab. ...Respondents
... Respondent
Date of filing : 28.07.2010
Date of Order: 07.07.2011
(2)
FIRST APPEAL NO.: 423 OF 2010
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 658 OF 2009
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: DHULE
International Tractors Ltd.,
Village Chak Gujran, P.O.
Pimplanwala0146022, Jalandhar Road,
Hoshiyarpur, Punjab. . ...Appellant
F.A. No.:423,457-10
2
-Versus-
1. Swapnil S/o. Sanjay Jaiswal
R/o. Ner, Tq. & Dist. Dhule.
2. Mittal Automotives,
Authorized Dealer of Sonalika Tractors,
123, Malegaon Road, Dhule,
3. ABEL,
A.B. Excavators & Earthmovers (P) Ltd.
ABEL Complex, Plot No. 164,
Sector 25, Faridabad- 121 004, Haryana. ...Respondents
Coram : Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Presiding Member.
Shri. K. B. Gawali, Hon'ble Member.
Present: Adv. Shri. D.B. Shinde, for respondent no.1/org.comlpainant Adv. Swapnil Patunkar, for Mittal Automotive. Adv. Shri. S.B. Solat, for International Tractor. None appeared for ABEL Company.
- :: ORAL ORDER ::-
Per Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Presiding Member.
1. Mittal Automotive, Dhule and International Tractors Ltd., Hushiyarur,Punjab, original opponents, appellants herein challenges in these appeals order passed by District Consumer Forum, Dhule on 29.06.2010. By this order Forum directs original opponent no. 1 to 3 to refund the price of tractor Combo attachment i.e. Rs.14,50,000/- with 9 % interest from the date of notice dated 31.07.2009.
2. Facts of the case are as under:
F.A. No.:423,457-10 3 Complainant Swapnil Sanjay Jaiswal R/o. Ner, Dist. Dhule purchased tractor on 21.10.2008 from respondent no.1 Mittal Automotive. On 22.10.2008 he purchased Combo attachment from Original opponent no.2, Respondent No.1 manufacturer of tractor and ABEL is manufacture of the Combo attachment. The complaint of the complainant is about defective tractor and attachment. On 31.07.2009 complainant issued legal notice to the appellants which was received by them and thereafter complainant approached to Forum. Forum issued notices to opponents.
3. Opponent No.2 appeared before Forum. Forum proceeded exparte against opponent no.1 & 3 as they did not appear before Forum. Opponent No.2 contended that, the complaint is about combo attachment and not about tractor; they are not necessary party. It is submitted by them that not a single complaint is made with them about defectiveness of tractor, therefore complaint is not maintainable.
4. After hearing both the parties District Forum held that tractor is lying with opponent no.1 and therefore District Forum directed to refund the price of tractor with combo attachment i.e. Rs.14,50,000/-.
5. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and order original opponents came in appeal.
6. Notices of appeal were served to other side. Adv. Shri. D.B. Shinde appeared for respondent no.1 (org. complainant) Adv. Swapnil Patunkar appeared for Mittal Automotive and Adv. Shri. S.B. Solat appeared for International Tractor. None appeared for F.A. No.:423,457-10 4 ABEL Company. With the consent of all the counsels we are deciding appeals at admission stage only. It is submitted by Adv. Patunkar and Adv. Solat that complainant did not approach to them with the grievance of any defect in the tractor or attachment. He directly issued legal notice and approached the Forum. No expert evidence regarding manufacturing defects was produced by the complainant before Forum. Tractor never handed over to appellant for repairs. It is still in possession of complainant. While directing appellants to refund the price of tractor District Forum did not consider the possession of said tractor. District Forum should have directed complainant to hand over the tractor and combo attachment to the appellant, if it has any manufacturing defects. District Forum did not consider whether tractor really suffered by manufacturing defect? Whether it was within warranty period? Whether possession of tractor is with opponent no.1? All these questions are to be decided by the Forum. Forum proceeded on wrong footing. No opportunity of hearing was given to respondent no.3 & 4 as notices sent by courier and receipt of said notices do not bear stamp of opponents. In our view, Forum should have granted the opportunity of fare hearing to all the parties and adjudicate the complaint after consideration of evidence put forth by all the parties. We are therefore remanding both these appeals to the Forum. Forum is to decide the complaints on merit. Hence,
-:: ORDER ::-
1. Appeal No. 423/2010 & 457/2010 are allowed.
2. The judgment and order passed by the Forum is hereby F.A. No.:423,457-10 5 quashed and set aside.
3. Matter be remanded back to the District Forum for deciding afresh after affording opportunity to both the parties to lead the evidence.
4. Both appellants to deposit Rs.1000/- each in legal aid account of this Commission.
5. Parties to appear before the Forum on 30.08.2011.
6. Both the appellants are at liberty to withdraw the mandatory amount deposited in this Commission at the time of filing of appeal.
(K. B. Gawali) (Mrs.Uma S. Bora)
Member Presiding Member
Kalyankar