National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Birachi Narayan Nayak vs M.M. Motors And Tractors And Ors. on 19 April, 2006
Equivalent citations: IV(2006)CPJ26(NC)
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1.This revision is directed against the order dated 11.7.2003 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Orissa, Cuttack passed on the application filed by respondent/opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 seeking modification/clarification of the order dated 28.8.2002 in Appeal No. 337 of 2001.
2. In short, the facts leading to filing of present revision are these Petitioner/complainant purchased a tractor manufactured by Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 2 through its dealer-respondent No. 1/opposite party No. 1 on 29.12.1997 with the finance provided by respondent No. 4/opposite party No. 4 Bank. The tractor developed defects within the warranty period. Therefore, the petitioner filed complaint which was contested by the respondents. Vide order dated 14.3.2001, the District Forum allowed the complaint in following terms:
8.(i) We direct O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 to remove the defects of the tractor which is consuming abnormal mobile and engine oil and to stop the abnormal discharge of smoke from the tractor by replacement of any parts/the engine and any other parts of the tractor which causes defects in the tractor within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 shall be liable to pay compensation of Rs. 150 for each day of delay in repairing.
(ii) Since the complainant could not get any benefit out of the tractor and the Bank loan interest piled up due to non-removal of defects from the tractor the interest accrued from 2.7.1999 till the defects are removed the O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 are liable to pay interest to the O.P. No. 4 for that period. Complainant shall recover interest from O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 and to pay the interest to O.P. No. 4.
(iii) The O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 shall pay costof Rs. 1,000 only to the complainant. In view of the order for payment of interest w.e.f. 2.7.1999 till removal of defects by the O.P. Nos. 1 to 3, we do not award any compensation on the O.Ps. for deficiency in service.
3. Dissatisfied with District Forum's order, the respondents filed appeal which was dismissed by the State Commission by the order dated 28.8.2002. Application seeking modification/clarification No. 808 of 2003 dated 25.3.2003 was thereafter, filed by the respondents. This application along with two other applications bearing No. 807 of 2003 and 809 of 2003 also filed by the respondents were disposed of by the State Commission by the order under challenge. In terms of this order, directions at above Nos. (i) and (ii) of the said order of District Forum in regard to award of compensation @ Rs. 150 per day of delay in repairing and interest on loan w.e.f. 2.7.1999 till defects were removed, were set aside by the State Commission. Having heard the parties' learned Counsel, we are of the view that said order dated ll.7.2003 is legally erroneous as the State Commission did not have the power of review/modify its earlier order dated 28.8.2002 which had attained finality not having been challenged by filing revision petition before this Commission by respondent Nos. 1 to 3. We are fortified in our view by the decision in CA Nos. 314 and 315 of 1999 III (1999) CPJ 1 (SC), Jyotsana Arvind Shah and Ors. v. Bombay Hospital Trust, decided on 22.1.1999 by the Supreme Court.
4. Accordingly, while allowing revision, aforesaid order dated 11.7.2003 is set aside. No order as to cost.