State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Punjab Tractors Ltd., vs 1. Smt. Saroj Devi Wife Of Sh.Umed Singh on 4 November, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UNION TERRITORY,
CHANDIGARH.
Appeal
case No.1862/2002/Hry/RBT/1478/2008
M/s Punjab Tractors Ltd., Sahibjada Ajit Singh
Nagar-160055(near Chandigarh) through its Manager.
Appellant
Versus
1.
Smt.
Saroj Devi wife of Sh.Umed Singh, resident of village and post office
Telanwali, Tehsil Adampur, District Hisar.
2.
M/s
Standard Services, Opp. Vidut Nagar, Delhi Road, Hisar, through its
Manager.
...Respondents
Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against
order dated 16.7.2002 passed by Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum- Hisar
Argued by: Sh.Sanjiv
Pabbi,advocate for the appellant.
BEFORE : Honble
Mr.Justice Pritam Pal, President
Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor (Retd.),Member
Mrs. Neena Sandhu,Member
JUDGMENT
4.11.2009 Justice Pritam Pal, President
1. This appeal by Opposite party No.2 i.e M/s Punjab Tractors Ltd. is directed against the order dated 16.7.2001 passed by District Consumer Forum-Hisar whereby complaint filed by Saroj Devi respondent No.1/complainant was allowed in the following terms ;
So, in the foregoing circumstances, the present complaint is accepted with cost and the respondent No.2 (appellant) is hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs.8200/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase of the tractor till realization. Cost is quantified at Rs.500/-.
2. The parties in this appeal hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Consumer Forum.
In nutshell the facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated thus;
The complainant on 25.4.2000 had purchased a Swaraj Tractor from OP No.1 by paying its cost of Rs.1,98,000/- vide bill NO.709 dated 25.4.2000. OP NO.1 for increasing the sale of tractors and to attract more customers had floated a gift scheme according to which on purchasing a tractor during the period from 6.3.2000 to 30.4.2000 the customer would be entitled to get a colour Television of 20 as a gift. The complainant made the cash payment and purchased a tractor during the said period of scheme i.e. on 25.4.2000 and as such she was entitled to get a colour TV as gift. Complainant was told by OP NO.1 that the TVs were not received from the company and as soon as the stock was received it would be delivered to her. Thereafter, complainant made repeated visits and requested OP NO.1 to deliver the TV but all her requests went unresponded. She even got served legal notice upon OP NO.1 through her counsel but of no avail. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum.
3. On the other hand, the case of Opposite party No.1 is that the complainant was asked to collect the TV in the month of May,2000 and she came in its premises on 16.5.2000 and took the benefit of gift scheme and got cash discount worth Rs.8200/- in lieu of colour TV. Whereas the case of OP NO.2 was that it never floated any gift scheme providing of colour TV on the purchase of tractor, so, there was absolutely no cause of action to file complaint against it.
According to OP NO.2, it sells Swaraj Tractors to its dealers who had been appointed for various places and all of them were having separate entity and acting independently for sale and service of Swaraj Tractors to their customers. OP NO.1 was one of its dealers who was working on principal to principal basis, so, complaint against answering OP was liable to be dismissed.
4. The District Consumer Forum after hearing learned counsel for the parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved opposite party No.2 had filed appeal before the Haryana State Consumer commission which has now been transferred to this Commission under directions of the Honble National Commission.
5. We have heard Sh.Sanjeev Pabbi,advocate learned counsel for the appellant and perused the file carefully. The only point raised on behalf of the appellant is that here in the instant case the liability, if any, should not have been imposed upon the appellant as scheme of giving gift of TV was never launched by it. He further submitted that if any fault or wrong in providing the service or malpractice of trade is there that could be levelled against OP NO.1 who was the dealer and it got published a scheme of providing the gift. In this regard he also made reference to annexure R-2 which is a pamphlet got published by M/s Standard Services,Hisar.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above said arguments raised on behalf of appellant. A perusal of the document annexure R-2 goes a longway to show that OP NO.1 was also an authorized seller of the appellant.
From this, it can be safely inferred that there was also an implied consent of the appellant given to OP NO.1 for launching such scheme of providing colour TV as a gift with the sale of tractor manufactured by it (appellant). From the perusal of the written statement filed on behalf of OP NO.1 it appears that it had taken stand of making the payment of Rs.8200/- in cash in lieu of providing the TV set but this aforesaid stand taken by the dealer is blatantly false on the face of it, inasmuch-as the aforesaid stand was taken by the OP NO.1 in May,2000 whereas in the letter dated 22.7.2000 written by the dealer to the complainant it is categorically mentioned that the TV set was available at its showroom for being delivered to her(complainant) and she could collect the same. All this goes a longway to show that the stand taken in the written statement filed by the dealer is contrary to its admission contained in letter dated 22.7.2009. Admittedly OP NO.1- the dealer was an authorized seller of the tractor got manufactured by the appellant. This fact is also mentioned in Ex.R-2 wherein the scheme launched for providing a colour TV is also incorporated.
7. Thus, taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, we are of the considered opinion that not only the dealer but both of them i.e. M/s Punjab Tractors Ltd.-
appellant and M/s Standard Services-OP NO.1 are jointly and severally liable to make payment of an amount of Rs.8200/- alognwith interest @ 12% and costs as ordered by the District Consumer Forum. But for above modification regarding fixing the liability of dealer as well as of manufacturer (appellant), the appeal is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to records.
Sd/-
Announced ( Justice Pritam Pal)(Retd.) 4th Nov.,2009 President Sd/- (Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor )(Retd.) Member Sd/-
(Mrs.Neena Sandhu) Member