State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
International Tractors Limited vs Mr Pradeep Indal Bhimte & Ors. on 16 August, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, CIRCUIT BENCH, NAGPUR 5th floor, Administrative Building, Civil Lines, Nagpur-01 Appeal No. A/03/391 (Arising out of Order dtd.24.02.2003 in Complaint No. CC/01/276 of District Forum, Bhandara) International Tractors Limited H.O. Sonalika House 283, AGCR Enclave Karkarduma, New Delhi- 110 092 .Appellant(s) Versus Mr Pradeep Indal Bhimte Dasgaon, Post, Dasgaon Tal. & Dist. Gondia M/s Kisan Automobiles Near S.T. Bus Stop Bagga Complex, Balaghat Road Gondia, Tal. & Dist. Gondia M/s K K Finance Deshbandhu Ward Gondia ..Respondent(s) BEFORE: Honble Mr B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member Hon'ble Smt.Jayshree Yengal, Member Hon'ble Mr N. Arumugam, Member PRESENT: Adv. Mr S B Solat ..for the Appellant None .....for the Respondent No.1 Adv. Mr MS Mendhe .....for the Respondent No.2 Adv. Mr M V Raut .....for the Respondent No.3 JUDGMENT
(Passed on 16.08.2013) Per Mr N Arumugam, Honble Member This is an appeal filed by the Org. O.P.No.3 / appellant against the order passed by DCF Bhandara in Consumer complaint No. CC/01/276 allowing the complaint.
The fact of the case in brief are as under:-
1. The original complainant purchased S-324 Sonalika Tractor fitted with the engine of Simpson make manufactured by o.p.No.3, from the o.p.no.1 for Rs.2.80 Lac and a trolley for Rs.72,500/- after obtaining loan from the o.p.No.2. The grievances of the complainant is that the engine of the tractor is not performing as per given specifications. Hence, demanded refund of the purchase price of the tractor alongwith compensation. He further states, as per the brochures issued by the o.p. No.1 and o.p.No.3 that the tractor was having engine capacity of 40 HP and the same was also mentioned in the training manual issued by o.p.No.3 According to the complainant since the tractor was not performing as per its specifications he has sent registered letter to Central Farm Machinery Training and Testing Institute (Ministry of Agriculture, Depart of Agriculture and Co-op.) Tractor Nagar, Bundi, (MP) 466 445, requesting to inform the capacity of the abovesaid engine. While replying to the complainant the Central Farm Machinery Training and Testing Institute informed that the above said engine was having PTO (Power Take off Test) horsepower ranged between 33.3 Ps to 33.9 Ps. After receipt of this letter the complainant filed the consumer complaint before the District Forum, Bhandara, claiming that the o.ps cheated the complainant by wrongly showing engine capacity as 40 HP and this amounts to unfair trade practice hence, he claimed Rs.4,95,500/-
towards the cost of the amount paid to the o.p., compensation and cost of litigation, etc.
2. The o.p.No.3 resisted the complaint by filing its written version that the abovesaid tractor is of 40 SAE category and the tractor is having same power as it was mention in its brochure. It further stated the power of the tractor is based on various factors such as Air filter, Generator, Exhaust system and capacity of engine revolution per minute (rpm) nature and quality of various components of transmission, purpose for which it is used and operating condition.
3. After hearing both the parties and perusal of the case record, the Forum allowed the complaint directing the o.p.Nos. 1 & 3 to refund of Rs.2,04,500/- with 12% interest from 01.10.1999 till its realization and also directed to pay 25,000/- as a compensation towards physical & mental torture, Rs.5000 towards compensatory cost and also directed to discontinue the unfair trade practice and false advertisement about the HP of the engine.
4. Being aggrieved by this order, the O.P.No.3 preferred this appeal.
5. Adv. Mr S B Solat appeared for the appellant and argued that the complainant sold above tractor to some other person during the pendency of the complaint before the Forum; hence, he has no locus standi in the matter. Adv. Mr Solat further stated that the abovesaid tractor was fitted with Simpson S324 engine and its power has been clearly specified as HP 40 SAE.
There are various internationally recognized system of specifying the power of engine like bhp, Ps (Pferdestarke = horse strength), SAE, Kw, etc. The complainant has confused with the power of Simpson S324 engine shown in bhp term and the power of the tractor is shown in SAE term. As per the certificate issued by the Mechanical Engineering Research & Development Organization, Ludhiana the power of Simpson S324 engine is of 39 HP as per SAE-J1995 June 90 rating. The Adv. Mr Solat finally prayed that the Forum without understanding these technical terms and also without appreciating all the facts erroneously allowed the complaint hence, same should be set aside.
6. Adv. Mr Mendhe appeared for the respondent No.2 dealer i.e. original o.p.No.1 supported the argument made by Adv. Mr Solat. Though the complainant filed the Written Notes of Argument remained absent at the time of final hearing.
7. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the case papers we observe that the complainant purchased the tractor from the appellant and after lapse of two years he has written letter to the Central Farm Machinery Training and Testing Institute (Ministry of Agriculture, Depart of Agriculture and Co-op.) Tractor Nagar, Bundi, (MP) 466 445, requesting to inform the capacity of the abovesaid engine.
Accordingly, the Institute also replied on 13.09.2001. Since the complainant filed the consumer complaint on the basis of this letter, the same has been reproduced for clarity as under:-
I am directed to refer your registered letter dated 1st Sept. 2001 inquiring about horsepower of Simpson S-324 engine. In this matter you are informed that we are not testing the engine installed on the tractors. However, during the course of tractor testing PTO test is conducted which reflects the engine performance of a tractor. During the course of testing of tractors fitted S-324, 3 cylinder engine, the observed PTO horsepower ranged between 33.3 Ps to 33.9 Ps. The overall performance of these engines was found to be satisfactory during the PTO test.
8. We carefully perused the above letter, which states that the horsepower of the engine is ranged between 33.3 Ps to 33.9 Ps. It is important to note that the manufacturer of the Simpson S-324 engine specifies the power of the engine in bhp which is of British method of measuring horsepower.
The manufacturer of the tractor specifies the horsepower in term of SAE which is of American method of measuring horsepower. The Central Farm Machinery Training and Testing Institute at Bundi (M.P.) measures the horsepower in terms of Ps which is of German method of measuring horsepower. Since these terms are denoting different capacity, created confusion in the mind of complainant.
9. Further the certificate issued by Mechanical Engineering Research & Development Organization, Ludhiana certified the power of the abovesaid engine in SAE-J1995 - June 90 rating.
According to this rating while measuring the horsepower accessories like air filter, generator, exhaust system are not included. Which means capacity of the engine (horsepower) will increase.
Hence, the capacity of engine is shown as 39 HP. But in the earlier rating BSAU-141: 1971 measuring horsepower was inclusive of air filter, generator and exhaust system. These two types of rating also created confusion in the mind of complainant. Further we observe the letter issued by the Central Farm Machinery Training and Testing Institute, Bundi (M.P.) clearly mentions the overall performance of this engine was found to be satisfactory during the PTO test.
Since the complainant filed the complaint based on this letter and this letter is one of the important document with regards to capacity of the engines and alleged Unfair Trade Practice of the appellant. The same letter also states that the overall performance of these engines was found to be satisfactory during the PTO test.
10. From the above discussion it is crystal clear that the mentioning horsepower in different terms bhp, SAE, Ps are for marketing and advertisement purposes which can be easily understand by the common man. The complainant used the tractor for two years and after obtaining letter from the Central Farm Machinery Training and Testing Institute, Bundi (M.P.) claiming damages is without considering performance of the tractor is unwarranted. However, the Forum without understanding these technical terms, allowed the complaint erroneously which cannot be sustained.
Hence, we pass the following order:
ORDER i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The impugned order passed by the Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint bearing No. CC/01/276 is dismissed.
iii. No order as to cost.
iv. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties.
[ B. A. SHAIKH ] PRESIDING MEMBER [ SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL] MEMBER [ N. ARUMUGAM] MEMBER sj