State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Chandan Mondal vs Rudra Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. on 6 July, 2012
D R A F T
State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission
West Bengal
BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND
FLOOR)
31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE
KOLKATA 700 027
S.C. CASE NO.
: FA/218/2011
(Arising out
of order dated 07.03.2011 of Consumer Case No. 139/2008 of D.C.D.R.F., Hooghly)
Date of Filing : 25.04.2011 Date of Final Order : 06.07.2012
APPELLANTS/COMPLAINANTS :
1) SRI CHANDAN MONDAL,
S/O Sri Mohan Mondal,
residing at Vill-Gopalnagar,
P.O.-Dabra, P.S.-Pandua,
Dist-Hooghly.
RESPONDENTS/O.P.S :
1) Rudra Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.
having its office at
Khagragarh More,
B.T.Road, Golap Bag, P.O
& Dist-
Burdwan.
2) Rudra Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.
having its head office at
Asansol,
P.O-Asansol, Dist-Burdwan.
3) Rudra Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,
Pandua, Kalitala, G.T.Road,
P.O &
P.S-Pandua, Dist-Hooghly.
4) Hooghly Co-operative Agri and
Rural Development Bank Ltd.
Pandua, Dist-Hooghly.
5) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
Mahindra Towers, Worli Road,
No.13, Worli, Mumbai-400018.
BEFORE : MEMBER : Sri D. Bhattacharya.
MEMBER : Sri
J. Bag.
FOR THE PETITIONER /
APPELLANT : Ms. Chaitali Sen,
Ld. Advocate.
FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S. :
Mr. Debdas Rudra,
Ld. Advocate.
: O R D E R :
No. 7/06.07.2012.
J. BAG, MEMBER.
The present appeal is directed against the order No. 33 dated 07.03.2011 in C.D.F. Case No. 139 of 2008 of D.C.D.R.F., Hooghly, Chinsurah.
The Appellant was aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the subject order/judgement and preferred to file an appeal before this Commission which was duly taken up by this Commission for admission and registration. The appeal was considered after the prayer for delay condonation was allowed.
The facts of the appeal in brief are as follows :
The Petitioner, Sri Chandan Mondal and another purchased one Mahindra Tractor known as Bhumi Putra Model No. 47501 Rev-3371 in the month of December, 2006 from Rudra Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Burdwan with a financial loan from Hooghly Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Pandua.
Soon after purchase of the said tractor the Complainant/Appellant faced some problems within 15 days. The water pump of the tractor broke down, fan was also not operating and then the battery allotted at the time of purchase was found to be not functioning. The tractor had to be shutdown for days together. The Complainant, as a result, could not use the vehicle for a few days and a heavy loss was being incurred. He lodged a complaint with the office of O.P. No. 2 Rudra Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Asansol, P.O. Asansol, Dist. Burdwan who entered the complaint in their books but allegedly did not issue any receipt. The water pump system was repaired by the said O.P. No. 2 but the battery was not replaced. The Complainant was compelled to replace the battery with a local product as it was a ploughing season. Then again, after a few months the pump nozzle element was badly damaged and it was reported to O.P. No. 2 on 06.11.2007 when the vehicle was taken back by the Burdwan office for replacement and it was detained in the factory for seven days or so but the repairing work which was done was not to the full satisfaction of the Petitioner. Then the engine started giving problem and for that reason the vehicle had to be kept idle for days together. At this stage the Burdwan Office reported that the body of the engine was not properly finished and because of uneven covering of the engine box frequent percolation of water inside the engine system was taking place resulting in the non-functioning of the vehicle. O.P. No. 2 orally admitted that the engine covering surface between the cover and the engine had manufacturing defect and it was not repairable by them. The vehicle had to be kept idle and the Complainant had to hire tractor for cultivation, for which he had to incur a loss of Rs.4,000/- per day. The multiple problems faced by the Petitioner developed within the warranty period, but the O.P. No. 2, allegedly, did not take up the matter with the manufacturing department. At that stage, the Complainant wrote to the Assistant Director of the Consumer Affairs Department from where a letter was sent to the O.P. for taking necessary action which went in vain. It has further been mentioned in the appeal that the Complainant/Appellant purchased the vehicle by taking loan from O.P. No. 4 and as he had to repay the loan without any income from the tractor his loss went on increasing. Finding no other alternative the Petitioner filed a consumer complaint case with the District Forum, Hooghly.
The O.P. Nos. 1, 2 & 3 denied all the allegations of the Petitioner save and except the fact that the tractor was purchased from their office at a sum of Rs.3,72,000/- on 16.12.2006. They made it a point that the problems faced by the Petitioner were because of mishandling of the tractor by the Petitioner.
In adjudicating the complaint the Ld. District Forum had before them the following questions :
(i) Whether the Petitioner is a consumer under the O.Ps?
It has been observed by the Ld. District Forum that the Petitioner by purchasing a Bhumi Putra Tractor from the shop of O.P. No. 2 and by paying requisite price for the same was a consumer to be reckoned under the Consumer Protection Act.
(ii) Whether the Petitioner suffered due to the deficiency in service by the acts of the O.Ps?
The Ld. District Forum, from an examination of the job cards relating to the services provided by the O.Ps, observed that they attended the Petitioner as and when the latter went to the O.Ps office with any prayer regarding the vehicle. They have noted in their judgement/order that every time when the Petitioner took delivery of the vehicle after repairing signed the job card in the box that was meant for the customer signature and the work done/service provided by the O.P. was recorded to as satisfactory. The Ld. Forum below also noted that the O.Ps were never found negligent in their service from the fact of their record. Referring to a judgement in the Jammu and Kashmir State Redressal Commission, Case No. 2429/02 it has been held that when the defects of various type were removed by the O.P. this cannot be termed as a manufacturing defect of the vehicle and hence, the Petitioner having failed to prove that the vehicle suffered from manufacturing defect or that the O.Ps were deficient in their service, the Ld. Forum dismissed the complaint on contest without cost.
The Complainant-turned-Appellant in his Memo of appeal mentioned that the new tractor which he purchased with a financial loan faced continuous and repeated problems which tantamount to manufacturing defect. It has been held by him that the Ld. District Forum failed to take note of judicial decision of the Honble higher courts in support of his case namely :
(i) 2006 (II) CPJ 64 (NC)
(ii) 2006 (II) CPJ 14 (SC)
(iii) 2009 (I) CPJ 80 (NC)
(iv) 2009 (II) CPJ 146 (NC)
(v) 2010 (II) CPJ 442 (W) They have categorically mentioned that the Honble National Commission in the case reported in 2009 (II) CPJ 146 (NC) held that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 required vide Section 13(i)(c), the District Forum to refer the case allegedly suffering from a defect to appropriate laboratory for test and determination as the subject tractor allegedly suffered from a defect or the other. Therefore, duty cast upon Ld. Forum to refer to the expert for proper detection of the problems.
It appears from the submissions of both parties, documents and evidences that though the Petitioner/Appellant insisted on replacement of the vehicle on the ground of manufacturing defect and though at one stage, one of the O.Ps opined that there was a manufacturing defect in respect of the subject tractor, no action was taken. It looks very likely that the subject tractor had such defects which needed to be examined and/or rectified by none other than the manufacturer themselves.
That was not done. The vehicle is said to have been lying idle though purchased at a substantial cost and the consumer in this case is not supposed to suffer indefinitely for no fault of his own.
Hence, ordered that the Respondents shall take immediate steps to take the vehicle to their workshop at their cost and shall thoroughly examine the vehicle for rectification of any defect or fault, manufacturing defect or whatever so that the vehicle becomes operational to the perfect satisfaction of the Appellant within 45 days from the date of this order. The appeal succeeds and is allowed on contest. Further, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be payable within 45 days from the date of this order for the mental agony and actual loss suffered so far by the idleness of the vehicle, failing which an interest @ 8% per annum shall be charged on the said amount till the date of realization.
MEMBER MEMBER