State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ranjan Behera vs Managing Director,Osfdc & Others on 28 May, 2008
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA: CUTTACK C.D. APPEAL NO.539 OF 2003 From an order dated 16.01.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Khurda in C.D. Case No.88 of 2002 Ranjan Behera, S/o. Bharat Behera, Resident of Chhanaghar, P.O- Kusumati, P.S- Jatni, District- Khurda. Appellant -Versus- 1. Managing Director, Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe Finance Development, Corporation Ltd., OSFDC, Lewis Road, Bhubaneswar. 2. Eastern Enterprisers, Plot No.349, Sahidnagar, Bhubaneswar. 3. Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Ltd., Athani, Ernakulam, Kerala. Respondents For the Appellant : For the Respondent no.1 : M/s. A.K. Rath & Assoc. For the Respondent no.3 : M/s. S.K. Mishra & Assoc. PRESENT : THE HONBLE SMT. BASANTI DEVI, MEMBER A N D SHRI SUBASH MAHTAB, PRESIDENT IN-CHARGE. O R D E R
DATE: -
28TH MAY, 2008.
This appeal has been filed by the complainant of C.D. Case No.88 of 2002 challenging the orders dated 16.01.2003 of the District Forum, Khurda at Bhubaneswar disposing of the C.D. Case only giving a direction to the opposite party No.2 (respondent No.2) to repair KAMCO Power Tiller completely, by extending three months extra warranty period within one month from the date of receipt of the order, taking into consideration the proposal of opposite party Nos.2 and 3 (respondent No.3) to repair said machine completely to which the authorized agent of complainant agreed.
2. The admitted facts in brief is that opposite party No.3 is the manufacturer of KAMCO Power Tiller with name and style of KAMCO Ltd., a Government of Kerala undertaking and opposite party No.2 is its local dealer of marketing.
Being financed by opposite party No.1, complainant purchased one KAMCO power tiller on 30.12.2000 through opposite party No.2 on payment of its price rupees 1,02,500/-.
3. Complainants case is that being an unemployed youth, he had purchased said power tiller to earn his livelihood. But 20 days after its use, it gave problem. So, he verbally reported this to opposite party No.2. When opposite party No.2 did not listen, he wrote to opposite party Nos.2 and 3. Opposite party No.2 send a mechanic who could not rectify the defect. This he has reported to the Chairman of opposite party No.1 his financier. Therefore, he filed the C.D. Case on 24.04.2002 praying to direct opposite party No.1 to Blacklist KAMCO power tiller and to provide him another power tiller as he has purchased KAMCO tiller on the advice of the opposite party No.1.
At the same time, he had prayer to direct opposite party Nos.2 and 3 to take back the defective KAMCO tiller and refund its price with interest @18% per annum from 21.01.2001 as it worked only for twenty days and to pay him compensation of rupees 50,000/- since he has defaulted payment to opposite party No.1 towards loan and to pay cost of litigation rupees 2000/-. Complainant authorized the General Secretary, State Consumer Protection League, Jatni, District- Khurda who filed the complaint on his behalf.
4. Though all the opposite parties have filed separate written versions yet all of them challenge the maintainability and cause of action in filing the C.D. case and have prayed for dismissal of the case. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 state that the complainant is not a consumer and have came up with the C.D. case making false accusations. According to them, opposite party No.3 is a highest reputed Company all over India and have never neglected its customers. Opposite party No.2 has categorically stated that the defects in the power tiller complained by the complainant was timely attended by him and opposite party No.3 deputing Companys Chief Mechanics and other mechanics. He has filed relevant papers relating to the power tiller including log book, service book, warrantee and specification chart (Annexure-C) showing that the said power tiller can only be used for tilling, paddling, ploughing, wedding, pumping, transporting, leveling, Hulling, spraying and riding. But in spite of their repeated warning each time after repair, complainant is using the power tiller for stone cutting, for which the power tiller is not giving proper service. He is contravening the warranty condition by using the power tiller for stone cutting other than the specification given by the Company. Complainant has torn away same pages of the Service book in order to make out a case in his favour. He has also stated that on the instruction of opposite party No.3, he had sent on 01.05.2001 the Chief Mechanic of the Company who found the power tiller was being used for stone cutting. Giving warning not to use the same, for stone cutting the Chief Mechanic however repaired the power tiller at which time first shaft and 16 T Gear worth rupees 650/- were replaced being paid by the complainant, as he was not entitled to get replaced these parts at the cost of the Company in view of warranty. Opposite Party No.2 also claims to have sent mechanics who have attended the power tiller on 06.02.2001 and 03.05.2001 and removed the defect caused due to misuse of the machine. Opposite Party No.3 has almost supported to the written version of opposite party No.2 as aforesaid.
5. Opposite Party No.1 as per his written version has stated specifically that he has never compelled complainant to purchase KAMCO brand power tiller. According to him, OSFDC whose Managing Director he is not the financing agency for giving loan under High Cost Scheme. As per the guideline and instruction of actual financing agency viz. NSFDC a Government of India undertaking, he has implemented the High Cost Scheme under which complainant was sanctioned loan to purchase power tiller.
At relevant period, KAMCO power tiller was the only approved brand of NSFDC and complainant was recommended for sanction of loan to purchase this brand of power tiller when knowing fully well about this he voluntarily applied for loan to purchase the KAMCO power tiller.
Opposite Party No.1 has further stated that after the C.D. Case was filed, on enquiry he learnt from other opposite parties that instead of using the power tiller for agricultural purpose, for which it is meant, complainant is using it for other purpose i.e. for stone cutting, for which machine became defective. Thus according to opposite party No.1, complainant has come up with a false and fabricated story to make illegal gain and to avoid payment of loan dues.
6. We have heard the appellant in person and the learned counsel for respondent No.1. None appeared for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
7. It is a fact that a proposal to repair the power till completely by extending three months extra warranty period being given by the advocate for opposite party Nos.2 and 3, to which the authorized representative, in short, A/R of the complainant agreed, the District Forum passed the aforesaid order dated 16.01.2003.
But, complainant claims to have been prejudiced by the said order as his A/R has agreed to aforesaid proposal without taking his consent and the District Forum has not awarded relief as per the claim schedule of the complaint petition i.e. compensation and cost of litigation. According to him as the power tiller is not functioning, it is not yielding any income to him, for which he is not able to repay towards loan account to opposite party No.1. Therefore, opposite party No.1 is to be prohibited to recover loan dues towards the tiller until the said machine can fetch him income. During the course of argument, it was submitted on behalf of the respondent No.1 (opposite party No.1) that the appellant having not filed this appeal challenging the impugned orders of the District Forum, whereas appeal has been filed with a prayer to direct opposite party No.1 not to press for payment of loan dues to the complainant, the appeal should be dismissed.
But, on thorough reading of the appeal memo, it is noticed that while making aforesaid prayer, complainant / appellant has expressed his dis-satisfaction as the impugned order has caused prejudice to him his A/R having agreed with the proposal of opposite party Nos.2 and 3 without intimating him and the District Forum has deprived him from compensation and cost of litigation and relief sought for against opposite party No.1 as per the claim schedule.
8. From the pleadings of the parties as discussed above, it is seen that opposite party Nos.2 and 3 when say that whatever complaints relating to power tiller has been made by the complainant have been attended through chief mechanics and other mechanics, complainant does not admit about the same and alleges deficiency in service against them. Complainant complains about manufacturing defect of the power tiller, for which he wants refund of the its price with interest and compensation and cost of litigation. Whether power tiller is suffers from manufacturing defect or not is to be adjudicated properly.
Moreover, whether complainant was using the power tiller for the purpose other than it is manufactured and purchased is the main point for adjudication. Unless matter relating to these respect are decided, there cannot be an dnd to the dispute between parties even if opposite party Nos.2 and 3 completely repair the power tiller. We feel that the A/R has exercised its authority improperly by agreeing to the aforesaid proposal of opposite party Nos.2 and 3. The complainant, therefore, has been seriously prejudiced by the aforesaid orders dated 16.01.2003 of the District Forum.
9. Therefore, with fairness of justice, we quash the impugned orders dated 16.01.2003 of the District Forum and remand the C.D. Case No.88 of 2002 to the District Forum for fresh and final disposal according to the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The appellant / complainant himself and opposite parties / respondents are directed to appear before the District Forum within fifteen days from the date of receipt of copies of this order.
Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith.