State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vinod Chunchuwar vs Janardhan Sitaram Khutemate+3 on 31 January, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA
STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA
CIRCUIT BENCH
AT NAGPUR
5 TH FLOOR,
ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING NO. 1
CIVIL LINES,
NAGPUR-440 001
First Appeal No.
A/07/1039
(Arisen out of
Order Dated 13/11/2007 in Case No. 159/2007 of District Forum, Chandrapur.)
Vinod Chunchuwar,
R/o. Dego Tucum, Near
Maharashtra Bank, Chandrapur.
........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Janardhan
Sitaram Khutemate,
2. Sau. Lilla
Janradhan Khutemate
3. M/s. S.A. Motors
Ltd,
117 A. Defense Service Enclave
Soldier Form, New Delhi-110 062.
4. Sasarc Motors
Ltd.,
B.14, 20, Baramati Co-operative
Industrial Estate, Baramati-414102,
Distt. Pune.
...........Respondent(s)
First Appeal No.
A/07/1069
(Arisen out of
Order Dated 13/11/2007 in Case No.
159/2007 of District Forum, Chandrapur.)
1. SAS Motors
Limited,
A company registered under the
Companies Act through its Managing
Director,
Having its works at B-14-20,
Baramati Co-operative Industrial Estate,
Baramati 414102, District Pune
Through its authorized signatory
Shri Ajay S/o Murlidhar Gangapurkar,
R/o. Industrial Estate, Bhigwan Road,
Baramati, District Pune.
2. SAS Motors
Limited,
A company registered under the
Companies Act through its Managing
Director,Having its registered office at
117-A, Defence Enclave, Sainik Farm,
New Delhi-110062
Through its authorized signatory
Shri Ajay S/o Murlidhar Gangapurkar,
R/o. Industrial Estate, Bhigwan Road,
Baramati, District Pune.
........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Shri Janardhan
Sitaram Kutemate,
R/o. Plot No.14, Arvind Nagar,
Mul Road, Chandrapur.
2. Smt. Leela w/o
Janardhan Kutemate,
R/o. Plot No.14, Arvind Nagar,
Mul Road, Chandrapur.
3. Shri Vinod
Chunchuwar,
Proprietor Suhas Tractors,
C/o. Suhas Food Products,
G-2, Pawansut Bazar, Ramnagar,
Chandrapur.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'ABLE MR. B.A. Shaikh, Judicial PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR.N. ARUMUGAM MEMBER
PRESENT:
Adv. Mr. V.M. Linge
......for the Appellant
Adv. Mr. R.V. Joshi for the respondent Nos.1&2
Adv. Mr. Shams for the respondent Nos.3&4
......for the Respondent
ORDER
(Delivered on 31/01/2014) Per Smt. Jayshree Yengal, Hon'ble Member.
1. These appeals arise out of the order dated 13/11/2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur partly allowing the consumer Complaint bearing No. 159/07 and thereby directing, i. Opposite party Nos. 1&2 /appellants in appeal No. 1069/2007 to accept the tractor in dispute and refund amount of Rs.135000/- with 9% interest to be imposed from 08/05/2006, ii. Opposite party Nos. 1,2 &3/appellants in appeal No. 1039/2007 to accept jointly the accessories which were supplied with the tractor in dispute and to refund the amount of Rs.40000/-, with 9% interest thereon to be applied from 25/08/2006, iii. Opposite party Nos. 1&2 to pay Rs.10000/- towards the cost of seeds and registration charges purchased by the complainant and Iv. Opposite party Nos. 1&2 to pay as compensation Rs.2000/- towards physical and mental harassment and Rs.500/- more towards cost of proceeding.
Since the above mentioned appeals arise out of the judgment dated 13/11/2007, we proceed to decide the aforesaid appeals by this common order.
The respondent No.1-Janardhan and respondent No.2- Smt. Lila in appeal No. 1069/2007 & 1039/2007 be referred as complainants and appellants No. 1- M/s. S.A. Motors Ltd. & appellant No. 2-SAS Motors Ltd. in appeal No. 1069/2007 be referred as opposite party Nos. 1&2 and appellant-Vinod Chunchunwar in appeal No. A/1039/2007 be referred as opposite party No.3 for the sake of brevity.
Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are :-
2. The complainant had purchased a tractor of "Angad 240D" Model for Rs.1,75,000/- on 15/05/2006 from opposite party No.3 who is the dealer. The complainant started using the said tractor on 22/06/2006. It was observed that the cultivator was of only two and half inch and therefore it could not be properly used. On 23/06/2006 the hydraulic system also developed some defect which could not be repaired and the rod of the tie and rod got bent. Therefore the use of the tractor was completely suspended.
Since the complainant had sold off his bullocks, he could not use the bullock cart for the cultivation and had to hire a tractor by paying charges for cultivation. The complainant therefore could not properly cultivate 10 acres of land for Soyabin and 7 acres of land for paddy cultivation. The respondent No 3 procured the tie rod from the respondent No.2 in July 2006. The respondent got the said rod fitted in the tractor by an untrained labour. The wheels of the tractor also got loosened and the fan had to be connected to the battery directly therefore the complainant realized that the tractor was defective since all these problems arose within three months of the purchase of the tractor. The complainant therefore sought an expert opinion from the mechanic one Anil Sindhikar in respect of the tractor. The said mechanic conducted an inspection of the tractor and the accessories therein and gave his report dated 23/09/2006 wherein he has recorded defect in hydraulic, stearing, gear box, self start, engine and brake drum etc. He has further opined in the said report that since the engine of the tractor is of less horse power, it is not fit to be used for the cultivation. The tyers and other accessories being of substandard quality, the tractor is prone to break down within a very short period.
The complainant therefore, issued a legal notice to the opposite parties being a manufacturer and dealer. Since the O.P. failed to take cognizance of the notice, the complainant alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice filed a consumer complaint and sought for refund of the cost of the tractor with 24% interest therein after returning the same to the dealer, Rs.25,000/- as compensation towards the loss caused due to the cultivation not carried out properly and loss of crops, Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of the seeds and registration expenses, Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental and physical harassment and Rs.3,050/- towards cost of the proceedings.
3. The opponents Nos. 1,2&3 resisted the complaint by filing their written version.
4. Although O.P. Nos. 1&2 admitted the tractor being purchased by the complainant and other details in respect of the tractor. It denied all the adverse allegations of the complainant and submitted that the accessories were sold by the dealer i.e. O.P. No. 3 to the complainant without knowledge of the O.P. Nos.1&2.
They further submitted that the tractor in dispute was of less Horsepower and therefore, the cost of the same was also very low. Therefore, this tractor was very useful to small cultivator who saved on tractor cost wise and Hosrsepowerwise. The tractor in dispute was not handled by trained person and therefore the tractor developed fault. They denied any manufacturing defect in the tractor.
5. The O.P. No. 3 submitted in its written version that although the complainant had not paid full amount towards the cost of the tractor and accessories, he had handed over the tractor with the original documents to the complainant and there was some amount still outstanding against the complainant, which the complainant did not intent to pay. Therefore, the complainant filed a frivolous consumer complaint which deserves to be dismissed, as there was no deficiency in service rendered and unfair trade practice adopted.
6. The Forum while allowing the complaint has held that the O.P. No. 3 has failed to bring on record any evidence in respect of any amount being outstanding against the complainant. Had it been the case, the original receipt given to the complainant would have borne such endorsement. The Forum has accepted that the report dated 24/09/2007 of Shri Gautam Kothari, Dip. Auto Engineer, I.M.I.I.S.A. who was appointed by the Forum as technician and Commissioner. The technician/mechanic appointed by the Forum has recorded his opinion after inspection as "Conclusion - During the short period of purchase the said tractor found major defects hence, said tractor is defective and not useful for cultivation."
7. The Forum after hearing both the sides and perusing the documents filed by both the parties on record partly allowed the complaint as aforesaid.
8. We heard counsel for the appellants and the respondents, and perused the copy of the complaint, written versions, inspection report and other documents filed on record.
9. It is not disputed that the tractor developed fault within very short period of purchase of the tractor and several repairs were carried out to set right the fault developed in the same.
10. The Forum has in addition to the expert report filed by the complainant has appointed an independent qualified technician as Commissioner to conduct the inspection and submit its report. The said report also substantiates the report filed by the complainant about manufacturing defect. Thus we find that there is sufficient evidence which proves that there is a manufacturing defect in the tractor. Therefore, Forum has rightly allowed the refund of the cost of the tractor with interest.
11. If the tractor is allowed to be returned and the cost be refunded then refund towards accessories would be incidental. However, imposing 9% interest on the cost of the accessories in our opinion defeats the purpose of meeting the ends of justice.
12. The compensation of Rs.10,000/- granted by the Forum towards the cost of seeds cannot sustain in law since it is the contention of complainant that he had hired tractor on rent for cultivation. Therefore it cannot be said that the seeds could not be sold and the complainant incurred loss towards the same. Therefore, in our opinion granting compensation for loss which cannot be inferred would not sustain in law. Therefore, it deserves to be set aside.
13. For the forgoing reasons, the appeals bearing Nos. A/07/1069 and A/07/1039 deserve to be partly allowed.
In the result we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
1. Appeals bearing Nos.
A/07/1069 and A/07/1039 are partly allowed.
2. The impugned order dated 13/11/2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur in Consumer Complaint No. 159/07 is modified as follows, Clause No. 2 of impugned order is modified to the effect that Opposite parties Nos. 1,2&3 to refund amount of Rs.40,000/- towards the cost of accessories after accepting the return of the same from the complainant.
3. Clause Nos. 3 of impugned order stands quashed and set aside.
4. Rest of the impugned order is maintained.
5. Under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the parties to bear their own cost.
6. Copy of order be furnished to both parties free of cost.
Dated:- 31/01/2014.
[HON'ABLE MR.
B.A. Shaikh, Judicial] PRESIDING MEMBER [ HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL] MEMBER [ HON'BLE MR.N. ARUMUGAM] MEMBER ay