National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Indo Farm Equipment Limited vs Bahadur Singh & 2 Ors. on 28 March, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1259 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 20/03/2015 in Appeal No. 762/2013 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. INDO FARM EQUIPMENT LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SCO 859, NAC, MANI MAJRA, CHANDIGARH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. BAHADUR SINGH & 2 ORS. SON OF MAGHAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF DHANAULA TEHSIL BARNALA PUNJAB 2. M/S KHALAS TRACTOR HOUSE, GT ROAD JAGRAON THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY LUDHIANA PUNJAB 3. GURU NANAK TRACTORS DHANAULA ROAD NEAR SALE TAX OFFICE BARNALA THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SH. TEK SINGH LUDHIANA PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishal Bhatnagar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Karan Dewan, Amicus Curiae with respondent-1 in person R-2&3 Exparte Dated : 28 Mar 2016 ORDER This revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 20.03.2015, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'State Commission') in Appeal No. 762/2013, "Indo Farm Equipment Limited vs. Bahadur Singh & Ors." vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 16.05.2013, passed by the District Forum Barnala, Punjab in consumer complaint No. 375/2011, filed by Bahadur Singh, s/o Maghar Singh, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.
2. The complainant Bahadur Singh s/o Maghar Singh, r/o Dhanaula, tehsil and District Barnala, Punjab, filed the consumer complaint, in question, stating that he purchased a new tractor, make Indo Farm 3050 DI, for a sum of ₹5,05,000/- vide bill No. 04 dated 10.06.2011 from Opposite Party - 3 (OP-3)/ respondent No. 3, Guru Nanak Tractors, but the said bill was issued by OP-2/respondent No.2 Khalsa Tractor House, stated to be authorised signatory of OP-1/petitioner, Indo Farm Equipment Limited (who are the manufacturers of the vehicle), for a sum of ₹4,40,000/-. The complainant stated that he paid a total sum of ₹3,30,000/- in cash and in lieu of the remaining amount, he sold his old tractor Swaraj 855 to the OP-3. The complainant alleged that there were some manufacturing defects in the new tractor purchased by him, namely, rubbing the tyres from wrong side, lift of the tractor not working properly, and defect in the diesel pump. As per the version of the complainant, he brought the said position to the notice of the OP-3, and the tractor remained parked with OP-3 for one week. Thereafter, the OP-3 handed over the tractor back to him with assurance that the tractor will run smoothly. However, the problem in the tractor persisted and when the matter was again brought to the notice of OP-3, they demanded a sum of ₹1,10,000/- for the replacement of the tractor. The complainant also alleged that the OPs had sold him an old tractor, instead of a new one and hence, played fraud with him. The complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs, in reply to which theOP-3 stated that the complainant was using the tractor for non-agricultural purposes. Through the complaint, the complainant demanded refund of a sum of ₹5,05,000/- alongwith interest, a compensation of ₹1 lakh on account of mental harassment/agony etc. as well as ₹15,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner/OP-1 by filing a written reply before the District Forum in which they denied that there was any manufacturing defect in the tractor, in question. They admitted, however, that the tractor was delivered to the son of the complainant, Gurmeet Singh after carrying out the repairs in their plant and the said Gurmeet Singh signed a satisfaction note to this effect. In his reply, OP-3 stated that the new tractor was sold for a sum of ₹4,40,000/- and after deducting ₹90,000/- as price of the old tractor, a sum of ₹3,50,000/- was received from the complainant.
4. The District Forum vide their order dated 16.05.2013 allowed the complaint and directed the three OPs to refund a sum of ₹5,05,000/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till realisation jointly and severally, and also directed payment of ₹25,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Being aggrieved against this order, the present petitioner/OP-1 challenged it by way of an appeal before the State Commission, which dismissed the same vide impugned order dated 20.03.2015, in which, it was stated as under:-
"12. In view of the fact that opposite party No. 1 received back this tractor for repairs, it does not lie in its mouth to say that the same was not having manufacturing defect. The complainant proved on record the certificate dated 24.08.2011 Ex. C-5, vide which it was certified by opposite party No. 1 that this tractor, after repairs in the plant, was sent back to opposite party No. 3 on 24.08.2011. A manufacturer would not have received back the tractor for repairs in plant, if there was no manufacturing defect in the same. Faced with that situation, one Satisfaction Note dated 24.08.2011 was proved as Ex.R-2. According to the opposite parties, the tractor was tested by Gurmeet Singh, son of the complainant, and he found that the same was performing well and he was fully satisfied with the performance thereof. For proving that Satisfaction Note, affidavit of Anil Jain, Company Secretary was proved on the record as Ex.R-1. Even if it is so, the son of the complainant had no authority from the side of the complainant to give such a satisfaction certificate nor it is the case of opportunity party No. 1 that the tractor was sent to it by that son of the complainant.
13. It is a case where one illiterate and rustic consumer is fighting against the manufacturer, having all the facilities on its back and who is guilty of the issuance of undated certificate from the manufacturer, thereby concealing that date on which the same was manufactured and in order to enable the dealer to cover his misdeeds of selling a second hand tractor under the guise of a brand new tractor. As already said above, the certificate Ex.C-5 goes a long way to prove that there was manufacturing defect in the tractor."
Being aggrieved against the above order of the State Commission, the petitioner/OP-1 manufacturer is before us by way of the present revision petition.
5. During the course of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner/OP-1 stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the said vehicle. He, however, admitted that the said tractor was repaired and handed over to the son of the complainant, who also signed a satisfaction note to this effect. The complainant had not challenged the validity of the said satisfaction note. The learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that there was no justification to file the present complaint and the tractor was being used by the complainant since then. The orders passed by consumer fora below were based on an erroneous analysis of the facts and circumstances on record.
6. The main issue involved in the case is whether the direction given by the District Forum in their order dated 16.05.2013, duly confirmed by the State Commission in appeal, to refund a sum of ₹5,05,000/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realisation, alongwith compensation of ₹25,000/- is justified in the eyes of law or not.
7. The complainant stated in his complaint that he purchased a new tractor for a sum of ₹5,05,000/- from OP-3, but he paid a sum of ₹3,30,000/- in cash for the said tractor; the remaining amount of ₹1,75,000/- was deducted from the value of tractor, as he sold his old tractor to OP-3, under the transaction. However, the bill was issued for a sum of ₹4,40,000/- by OP-2, M/s. Khalsa Tractor House. In their written reply, the petitioner / OP-1 have not mentioned anything about the price of the tractor or the money charged from the complainant. However, OP-3 Guru Nank Tractors, stated in their reply that a new tractor was sold by them to the complainant for ₹5,05,000/-, but a bill was issued for ₹4,40,000/- after accounting for the price of the old tractor, sold by the complainant to them. Interestingly, one Tek Singh s/o Heera Singh has filed an affidavit dated 30.11.2012 on behalf of OP-3 before the District Forum, in which he stated that the complainant purchased a brand new tractor for a sum of ₹4,40,000/- from them. After deducting a sum of ₹90,000/- as value of the old tractor sold by the complainant, the balance amount of ₹3,50,000/- was received by them from the complainant. It is made out, therefore, that there is variation in the version given by the OP-3 in their written statement and in the affidavit filed by them, as regards the price of the new tractor and the price at which the old tractor was sold by the complainant is concerned. In any case, there is no conclusive evidence produced on record, either by the complainant or the OPs from which the exact price of the new tractor, or the value of the old tractor sold by the complainant could be ascertained. However, the orders passed by the fora below are based on the assumption that the price of the new tractor was ₹5,05,000/- although, a copy of the invoice issued by OP-2, Khalsa Tractor House dated 10.06.2011 has been placed on record which shows that the value of the tractor was ₹4,40,000/-. The affidavit filed on behalf of OP-3 also mentioned the price as ₹4,40,000/-. It is evident, therefore, that the order passed by the fora below, presuming the price of the tractor as ₹5,05,000/- is not based on any reliable evidence to this effect.
8. The basic issue that requires our consideration is whether the new tractor sold by OP-3 to the complainant suffered from any manufacturing defect and whether the direction issued by the Fora below for refund of the whole amount of the tractor, without even directing that the tractor should be returned to the OPs, is justified by any standard. The crucial documents on record, are copies of the certificate dated 24.08.2011 given by the petitioner/OP-1 and the 'satisfaction note', signed by Gurmeet Singh son of the complainant. The certificate dated 24.08.2011 issued by the petitioner records as follows:-
"This is to certify that we are sending back tractor model 3050DI to M/s. Guru Nanak Tractors, Barnala (Punjab) after repair in plant on 24.08.2011.
Tractor Model Chassis No. Engine No. 3050DI ENM3050000877 C328600393NM"
9. It is clear from the said certificate that the tractor was sent back by petitioner/OP-1, to OP-3 Guru Nanak Tractors after repairs in their plant, which implies that there were certain defects in the vehicle, which were duly rectified by the petitioner/OP-1. The satisfaction note recorded by Gurmeet Singh son of the complainant shows as follows:-
"I have checked and tested my tractor and now the same performing well, and I am fully satisfied with the performance of my tractor. I have no complaint of whatsoever nature either of my tractor or of dealer. "
10. A plain reading of the note recorded by the son of the complainant indicates that he was fully satisfied with the performance of the tractor and there was no complaint whatsoever in this regard. The complainant has nowhere stated that the said satisfaction note was not signed by his son. He has stated in the complaint, however, that the problem remained unsolved and he again brought the matter to the notice of the OP-3 who demanded a sum of ₹1,10,000/-, in cash, and stated that the tractor, in question, will be got replaced by a new one. The said version of the complainant does not get substantiated by any evidence on record. The complainant has not stated anywhere whether he took the tractor again to the OPs for repairs on any specific dates and what were the exact defects pointed out by him. There are no job cards also available, from where it could be ascertained whether there were any defects in the vehicle. The complainant has placed on record an affidavit filed by Kulwant Singh, who is stated to be running a tractor repair workshop at Dhanaula, stating that he found the tyres of the tractors rub from wrong side, but the said affidavit is dated 04.01.2011, i.e., well before the said tractor was repaired by the petitioner/OP-1. There is another affidavit filed by one Bahadur Khan, who is stated to be doing tyre repair work at Dhanaula dated 2.12.2011, but there is nothing to corroborate the version given, because there is no material to establish whether the tractor was again taken to the OPs for repairs and whether any specific defects were pointed out to them.
11. The consumer fora below awarded full amount of the tractor to be given to the complainant but they have not given any direction to him to hand over the said tractor to the OPs before claiming the said amount. During hearing before us, the complainant admitted that the said tractor was very much in his custody, giving rise to the presumption that it was still being used by him. The consumer fora below have also not brought out anywhere whether defects persisted in the tractor even after its repairs by the petitioner/OP-1 and it was not possible to remove such defects, so that the refund of the full value of the tractor to the complainant was justified. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the orders passed by the consumer fora are not sustainable in the eyes of law, since there is no justification for arriving at the figure of ₹5,05,000/-, as value of the vehicle; nothing to prove that any specific defects were left in the tractor post-repairs; and no direction was given for the return of the vehicle to the OPs.
12. Looking at the overall facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, this revision petition is allowed and the orders passed by the fora below are set aside. However, considering the fact that the tractor was repaired by the petitioner/OP-1 in their plant and returned to the son of the complainant, who recorded the satisfaction note, we feel it appropriate that the ends of justice shall be served if the OPs are directed to pay suitable compensation to the complainant for supplying him a defective tractor at the initial stage. It is ordered, therefore, that a sum of ₹1,00,000/- should be given to the complainant by way of compensation by the three OPs jointly and severally alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realisation. There shall be no order as to costs. The fees of amicus curiae be paid as per rules.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA MEMBER