National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Dattu Krishna Kadam vs Same Deutz Fahr India Pvt. Ltd. on 27 January, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI (1) REVISION PETITION NO.2747 OF 2011 (Against the order dated 15.11.2010 in Appeal Nos.2252 to 2255 of 2005 of the State Commission, Maharashtra) Dattu Krishna Kadam Age-70 years, Occ. : Agriculturist At Post Vadshirge, Taluka Madha Distt. Solapur, Maharashtra ....... Petitioner Versus 1. Same Deutz Fahr India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly, Same Greaves Tractors Pvt. Ltd.) Having registered office at Plot No.72, SIPCOT Industrial Complex Ranipet 632403, Tamilnadu 2. M/s Dhanashree Tractors (Through Prop. Shree Sanjay Mama Shinde) Temburni, Taluka Madha, Distt. Solapaur Maharashtra ... Respondents (2) REVISION PETITION NO.2748 OF 2011 (Against the order dated 15.11.2010 in Appeal Nos.2252 to 2255 of 2005 of the State Commission, Maharashtra) Hanumantu Ramchandra Kale Age-48 years, Occ. : Agriculturist At Post Bembale, Taluka Madha Distt. Solapur, Maharashtra ....... Petitioner Versus 1. Same Deutz Fahr India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly, Same Greaves Tractors Pvt. Ltd.) Having registered office at Plot No.72, SIPCOT Industrial Complex Ranipet 632403, Tamilnadu 2. M/s Dhanashree Tractors (Through Prop. Shree Sanjay Mama Shinde) Temburni, Taluka Madha, Distt. Solapaur Maharashtra ... Respondents (3) REVISION PETITION NO. 2749 OF 2011 (Against the order dated 15.11.2010 in Appeal No.2252 to 2255 of 2005 of the State Commission, Maharashtra) Bapu Sripathy More Age-74 years, Occ. : Agriculturist At Post Bavi, Taluka Madha Distt. Solapur, Maharashtra ....... Petitioner Versus 1. Same Deutz Fahr India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly, Same Greaves Tractors Pvt. Ltd.) Having registered office at Plot No.72, SIPCOT Industrial Complex Ranipet 632403, Tamilnadu 2. M/s Dhanashree Tractors (Through Prop. Shree Sanjay Mama Shinde) Temburni, Taluka Madha, Distt. Solapaur Maharashtra ... Respondents (4) REVISION PETITION NO. 2750 OF 2011 (Against the order dated 15.11.2010 in Appeal Nos.2252 to 2255 of 2005 of the State Commission, Maharashtra) Dnyaneshwer Bhagwan Mutkule Age-55 years, Occ. : Agriculturist At Post Padsali, Taluka Madha Distt. Solapur, Maharashtra ....... Petitioner Versus 1, Same Deutz Fahr India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly, Same Greaves Tractors Pvt. Ltd.) Having registered office at Plot No.72, SIPCOT Industrial Complex Ranipet 632403, Tamilnadu 2. M/s Dhanashree Tractors (Through Prop. Shree Sanjay Mama Shinde) Temburni, Taluka Madha, Distt. Solapaur Maharashtra ... Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Nitin R. Kalshetti, Advocate For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Rajeev K.Virmani,Sr. Advocate Ms. Rashmi Virmani, Mr.Ashish Kothari and Mr. Shreyansh Mardia, Advocates For the Respondent No.2 : Already ex-parte Pronounced on :27th January,2014 ORDER
PER MR. JUSTICE V.B.GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Above mentioned revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order since Consumer Complaints (Nos.843,844 and 845 of 2003 and 38 of 2004) filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur(for short,District Forum) were disposed of by common order, dated 12.09.2005.
2. Brief facts are that Petitioners/Complainants purchased tractors from Respondent No.2/Opposite Party no.3. The tractors were manufactured by M/s Same Greaves Tractors Pvt. Ltd/Opposite Party No. 1(Now known as-Same Deutz Fahr India Pvt. Ltd/Respondent No.1)
3. It is petitioners case that tractors were purchased during the period ranging from 11.1.2000 to 27.2.2001. It is alleged that there were certain technical defects during the period of free services which were brought to the knowledge of the manufacturer as well as the dealer. Moreover, spare parts were not made available during the warranty period. Since, the tractors were not running properly after its purchase, complainants had incurred unnecessary repairing expenses. Therefore, complaints were filed before the District Forum praying that manufacturer/dealer be directed to get back the defective tractors and to refund the amount of the tractors.
4. The manufacturer in its written statement took the plea that complaints filed against it are not maintainable as per law, because at the time of filing of the complaints, no company with the name of Same Greaves Tractors Pvt. Ltd. was there. The complaints filed against wrong person are liable to be dismissed. 5. The allegations with regard to the technical defects were denied. Amongst others, it is stated that the complaints have been filed after lapse of two years. As such the same are not maintainable and are barred by limitation.
6. District Forum, vide order dated 12.09.2005 allowed the complaints and directed the respondents to pay the costs of the tractors to the respective complainants.
7. The order of the District Forum was challenged by Respondent No.1 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (for short State Commission) which vide its impugned order dated 15.11.2010, allowed the Appeals and dismissed all the consumer complaints.
8. Being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, Petitioners have filed these revision petitions.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
10. Petitioners in their entire complaints have nowhere stated as to when the cause of action arose against the respondents.
11. Petitioners have admittedly purchased the tractors during the period ranging from 11.1.2000 to 27.2.2001. Whereas consumer complaints have been filed in the year 2004. Thus, on the face of it, consumer complaints filed before the District Forum were barred by limitation and no application under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986(for short, Act) was filed before the District Forum.
12. State Commission in its impugned order has observed as under;
Admittedly, each one of the complainants had availed service of free servicing as much as six in numbers and also allowed to pass the respective warrantee period based upon total operational hours. If there was any manufacturing defect as alleged, then the tractors would not have run even for this period of warrantee. It is for the complainants to establish their grievances, namely, there is manufacturing defect in the tractors and as such allowing to sell those tractors is unfair trade practice and the other grievance referring to deficiency in service for not supplying the spare parts to repair those tractors when required. Complainants in all the consumer complaints miserably failed to establish the same.
Furthermore, loss of business which the complainants calculated on the basis that they could not use the tractors for transporting sugarcane and for allied purposes i.e. for using the tractor for transportation purpose and loss of business accordingly. Referring to the circular dated 23/09/1998 of Deputy Transport Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, supra, it could be seen that the registration of these tractors was under non-transport category and not for any transport. Therefore, any compensation claimed on account of loss of business cannot be allowed. Furthermore, compensation is claimed by each one of the consumers/complainants for loss occurred due to expenditure on driver employed on those tractors. Thus, the tractors were not run by the complainants in each consumer complaints, on their own. The circumstances disclosed that these tractors were purchased under the self-employment scheme for transportation of sugarcane i.e. for commercial purposes and in absence of any pleadings covering the circumstances (of exception) relating to Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, each complainant will not fall within the definition of consumer under the Act and as such also these disputes cannot be termed as consumer disputes. The impugned order is also vitiated on this count.
The Consumer Fora wrongly presumed the cause of action as continuous one and thus, arrived at wrong conclusion on the point of limitation. Cause of action arose soon after purchase of the respective tractors as far as manufacturing defects are concerned. No dates of specific event as well as whether the tractors could not be repaired for want of spare parts are mentioned.
For the reasons stated above, we find that the impugned order which is common order in all the consumer complaints cannot be supported with and holding accordingly, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
Appeal Nos. 2252 to 2255/ 2005 are allowed. The impugned order dated 12/09/2005 is set aside and in the result, the consumer complaint Nos. 843/2003, 844/2003,845/2003 & 38/2004 stand dismissed.
13. It is well settled principle of law that any relief can be claimed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as Act) within two years from the date on which the cause of action accrues.
14. Section 24-A of the Act deals with this situation which is reproduced as under ;
24-A. Limitation period :-(1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.
15. The above provision is clearly peremptory in nature requiring the Consumer Fora to see at the time of entertaining the complaint, whether it has been filed within the stipulated period of two years from the date of cause of action.
16. Honble Apex Court in case of Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2009 CTJ 951 (Supreme Court) (CP) took view of the observations made in case State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP) = JT 2009 (4) SC 191, as under;
12. Recently, in State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP) = JT 2009 (4) SC 191, this Court, while dealing with the same provision, has held:
8. It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, shall not admit a complaint occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.
In para No.13, it has been held by the Honble Supreme Court ;
The term cause of action is neither defined in the Act nor in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but is of wide import. It has different meanings in different contexts, that is when used in the context of territorial jurisdiction or limitation or the accrual of right to sue. Generally, it is described as bundle of facts., which if proved or admitted entitle the plaintiff to the relief prayed for. Pithily stated, cause of action means the cause of action for which the suit is brought.Cause of action is cause of action which gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit. In the context of limitation with reference to a fire insurance policy, undoubtedly, the date of accrual of cause of action has to be the date on which the fire breaks out.
17. The Apex Court in State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries, II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC) SLT 793 = (2009) 5 SSC 121, held as under ;
12. As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of Section 24-A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet the Consumer Forum decided the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality and therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.
18. On the point of recurring cause of action reference may be made to the observation made by the Honble Supreme Court in Raja Ram Maize Products etc. Vs. Industrial Court of M.P. and Other, AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 1676, wherein it has been held ;
10. The concept of recurring cause of action arising in a matter of this nature is difficult to comprehend. In Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare v. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan, AIR 1959 S.C. 798 it was noticed that a cause of action which is complete cannot be recurring cause of action as in the present case. When the workers demanded that they should be allowed to resume work and they were not allowed to resume work, the cause of action was complete. In such a case the workers going on demanding each day to resume work would not arise at all. The question of demanding to allow to do work even on refusal does not stand to reason.
19. Thus on the face of it, complaints filed before the District Forum were barred by limitation and no applications for condonation of delay had been filed on behalf of the Petitioners. Under these circumstances, we find that there is no ambiguity and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the State Commission in allowing the Appeals of the respondents and dismissing all the consumer complaints filed by the Petitioners before the District Forum.
20. Accordingly, we dismiss all the above noted revision petitions. Consequently, all the complaints filed by the Petitioners before the District Forum stand dismissed.
21. Parties shall bear their own cost.
.......J ( V. B. GUPTA) PRESIDING MEMBER .....
(REKHA GUPTA) MEMBER SSB/