National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Tractors & Farm Equipment Ltd. vs N. Somanatha Gowda And Anr. on 1 October, 2001
Equivalent citations: I(2008)CPJ125(NC)
ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. Petitioner-manufacturer in this batch of five petitions filed under clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is aggrieved by the order of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, dismissing its appeals and affirming the order of the District Forum. First Respondents in all these petitions were the complainants. Their complaints before the District Forum, Kolar were allowed with a direction to the petitioner, who was opposite party No. 1, to deliver the tractor to each of the complainants through the present dealer on receiving the additional price of the tractor and in the alternative to refund Rs. 2.000 lakhs to each of the complainants with interest @ 18% per annum which amount petitioner had received from this authorised dealer opposite party No.2 (now respondent No.2). District Forum also directed opposite party No.2 to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to each of the complainants Cost of Rs. 500/- to each of the complainants was also awarded. Opposite party No.2 who was the authorised dealer of tractors manufactured by the petitioner was ex-parte before the District Forum. It remained ex-parte before the State Commission as well and is arrayed as respondent No.2 in the present revision petitions.
2. Petitioner is the manufactured of tractors. It had appointed respondent No.2 as its authorised dealer. For purchase of tractor each of the complainants paid Rs. 2.00 lakhs by means of bank draft in the name of the petitioner to the second respondent, the authorised dealer. Admittedly the amount was sent by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner and was duly received by the petitioner. Contention of the petitioner is that the letter sending these five separate bank drafts to the petitioner, the second respondent, its authorised dealer did not state that these bank drafts pertained to whom. Rather in the letter dated 5.7.97 sent by the second respondent to the petitioner, reference was drawn to these 5 bank drafts. This letter has been the main plank of arguments by Mr. Haskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. This letter reads as under:
"Dear Sir, SUB: USANCE BILL We are enclosing herewith the following Demand Drafts totalling to Rs. 26,18,935/- (rupees Twenty six lakh eighteen thousand nine hundred and thirty five only), in full settlement of your Usance Bill No. 27, dated 30/4/97 with TAFE Invoice reference No. 65300, 65230-31, 65262-63, 65286-87 and 65298-99 dated 30.4.97.
D.D. NO: Date Amount In Favour of
1. 045297 5/7/97 9,00,000/- CBI, A/c TAFE Ltd, Madras
2. 045298 5/7/97 7,18,935/- .....do.....
3. 378349 5/7/97 2,00,000/- TAFE Ltd, Chennai.
4. 378350 5/7/97 2,00,000/- .....do.....
5. 378551 5/7/97 2,00,000/- .....do.....
6. 214196 5/7/97 2,00,000/- .....do.....
7. 192637 5/7/97 2,00,000/- .....do.....
Kindly note that five demand Drafts are drawn in favour of TAFE Ltd., and we request you to regularise this to CBI, A/c TAFE Ltd., Chennai.
Thanking You, Yours faithfully, for Sri Venkateswara Tractors and Farm Equipments (P) Ltd.
S/d-
Managing Director cc: Sr. Vice President-Sales & Mktg., cc: Dy. General Manager - Mktg., cc: Sr. Area Manager."
3. It is contended by the petitioner before us that the dealership of the second respondent was terminated on 5.5.98. It is contended that authorised dealer had committed fraud and action is taken against it both in civil and criminal proceedings. Letter dated 5.7.97 which has been from the second respondent to the petitioner which we have reproduced above, does mention of the 5 bank drafts separately. It would have certainly put the petitioner on guard as to why there would be 5 different bank drafts of Rs. 2.00 lakhs each. Be that as it may, fact remains that because of the dispute between the authorised dealer and the manufacturer, complainants who were poor agriculturist could not be made scape goat. They did pay the amounts for purchase of the tractors manufactured by the petitioner through authorised dealer who sent these amounts to the petitioner and were received by it. Whether the authorised dealer misguided the petitioner is their affair. Complainants cannot be allowed to suffer for that. Further contention of the petitioner that the relationship between the manufacturer and the dealer was that of principal to principal has no meaning so far as the dispute raised by the complainants is concerned. As to what is the arrangement between the authorised dealer and the manufacturer is not made known to the complainants. The complainants who were agriculturist paid the money to the authorised dealer taking him as the agent of the petitioner-manufacturer which money admittedly received by the petitioner. In a dispute between the manufacture and the authorised dealer, complainants, the poor agriculturist who wanted to buy a tractor, cannot be taken for a ride.
4. Both the District Forum and the State Commission have taken correct view of the matter and have given directions as aforesaid. We do not find error in the impugned order to exercise our jurisdiction under clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. Order of the District Forum as upheld by the State Commission is affirmed. These revision petitions are dismissed.