Back
KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE
Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.R. Vithal Rao, President &
Mrs. Susheela Cheluvaraju, Member
N.K. DASAPPA—Complainant
versus
S.K. SHIVAKUMAR & ANR.—Opp. Parties
C. No. 246 of 1992—Decided on 4.8.1994
A consumer is entitled to safe and durable goods, and the manufacturer is liable for any defects in the goods.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(g) - DEFECTIVE GOODS - TRACTOR - MANUFACTURING DEFECTS - REPLACEMENT OF TRACTOR - REFUND OF PRICE - COMPENSATION FOR MENTAL AGONY AND SUFFERINGS - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 2(1)(g) - CONSUMER'S RIGHT TO SAFE AND DURABLE GOODS - MANUFACTURER'S LIABILITY FOR DEFECTIVE GOODS - ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION FOR MENTAL AGONY AND SUFFERINGS.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased an Escorts 335 tractor from the dealer (Opposite Party No. 1) on 15.11.1991 for a sum of Rs. 1,47,392.44. The tractor suffered from several manufacturing defects, including repeated damage to the clutch plate, flywheel, flywheel housing, pressure plate, cover assembly, fuel tank, and gear box housing. The complainant reported the defects to the dealer and the manufacturer (Opposite Party No. 2) on several occasions, but the defects persisted. The complainant left the tractor with the dealer on 29.9.1992 and filed a complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum seeking replacement of the tractor or refund of the price paid, along with compensation for mental agony and sufferings.
Finding of the Court:
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum held that the tractor supplied to the complainant suffered from material manufacturing defects and that the complainant had suffered loss and injury as a result. The Forum directed the Opposite Parties to refund the price paid by the complainant with interest at 21% per annum from the date of purchase, and to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000 for mental agony and sufferings.
Issues: 1. Whether the tractor supplied by the Opposite Parties to the complainant suffered from any material defects? 2. Whether the complainant did suffer any loss or injury as averred by him? 3. If it is answered in the affirmative to what the relief the complainant is entitled to?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the tractor supplied to the complainant suffered from material manufacturing defects, based on the following evidence: a. The Opposite Parties admitted that the clutch plate was damaged and replaced on several occasions between 25.1.1992 and 30.9.1992. b. The Opposite Parties also admitted that the flywheel housing, flywheel assembly, pressure plate, cover assembly, fuel tank, and gear box housing were damaged and replaced at different times during that period. c. The report of the Commissioner appointed by the court showed that the clutch plates were replaced 9 times during 820 hours of service, and that the clutch facing, clutch plate, pressure plate, flywheel, and flywheel housing were new. d. The report of the Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor showed that the embossing on the engine and gear box of the particular vehicle was different from other Escorts tractors, and that the punched serial number was not legible. 2. The court held that the complainant suffered loss and injury as a result of the defective tractor, based on the following evidence: a. The complainant purchased the tractor for cultivation of his lands, but he was unable to use it due to the repeated defects. b. The complainant had to leave the tractor with the dealer on 29.9.1992, and he had not been able to use it since then. c. The complainant had to pay interest on the loan he had taken to purchase the tractor, even though he was unable to use it. 3. The court held that the complainant was entitled to a refund of the price paid for the tractor, with interest at 21% per annum from the date of purchase, and compensation of Rs. 25,000 for mental agony and sufferings.
Final Decision: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum's order was upheld. The Opposite Parties were directed to refund the price paid by the complainant with interest at 21% per annum from the date of purchase, and to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000 for mental agony and sufferings.
Mr. Justice D.R. Vithal Rao, President— The complainant is an agriculturist of Neralakere village of Hosadurga taluk in Chitradurga District.
Opposite Party No. 1, is the dealer engaged in booking orders for Escorts Tractors; he receives the full price in advance, places orders with O.P. No. 2, manufacturer of Escorts Tractors, sends the price money so received to the Manufacturer in advance by deducting its commission, that is, dealer’s margin amount, gets the vehicle and delivers it to consumer and thereafter renders service to the vehicle during the warranty period.
2. Opposite Party No. 2 is the Manufacturer of Escorts Tractors, which is engaged in production, supply and distribution of Farm Equipments, that is Escorts Tractors, its implements, accessories and spare-parts.
3. The complainant, has in this complaint, sought the replacement of Escorts Tractor bought by him from the Opposite Parties on 15.11.1991 with a new tractor of a similar decription free from any defect or in the alternative he has sought refund of the price money of Rs. 1,47,392.44 paid by him with interest thereon and also compensation for the mental agony and sufferings undergone by him.
4. The complainant, it is not disputed, bought an “Escorts 335” tractor from O.P. No. 1 on 15.11.1991 for a sum of Rs. 1,47,392.44 which is evidenced by Ex. C-4. The Opposite Parties have not disputed this fact.
5. It is the case of the complainant that he started the agricultural operations with the said tractor in the month of January, 1992. On 20.1.1992, the clutch plate damaged. The Complainant carried the vehicle to O.P. No. 1 at Davangere, got it repaired. Again the clutch plate got damaged on 17.2.1992, O.P. No. 1 replaced it. Again on 18.3.1992, clutch plate got damaged. When he took the vehicle to the dealer O.P. No. 1, he replaced the said clutch plate and also replaced housing flywheel, flywheel, and flywheel assembly. Thereafter, once again the clutch plate got damaged on 28.4.1992, it was again replaced by the dealer.
6. The complainant further averred that on 10.5.1992, the pressure plate got damaged. It was replaced and on 25.5.1992 fuel tank got damaged and it was replaced.
7. The complainant further averred that the clutch plate got again damaged on 13.6.1992 and once again on 20.7.1992; on both the occasions O.P. No. 1 replaced the clutch plates. The clutch plate got damaged once again on 13.8.1992; on 28.8.1992 gear box housing and clutch plate got damaged and replaced. Even dynamo got damaged and it was got repaired at Karkere Electricals and Engineering Works. Once again the clutch plate got damaged on 28.9.1992 and the complainant took the vehicle to O.P. No.1 on 29.9.1992 and left the said vehicle with the dealer, since then the vehicle is lying with the dealer at Davangere.
8. The complainant, nextly averred that he had written a letter to the dealer on 20.4.1992 itself, as per Ex. C-l, explaining him the several manufacturing defects in the vehicle and requesting the dealer to replace the vehicle with a new vehicle without any defects. O.P. No. 1, in reply to the said letter, had written him a letter on 29.4.1992, as per Ex. C-2, assuring him satisfactory and good services on his behalf to the complainant.
9. The complainant nextly averred that the tractor that was supplied to him did suffer with several manufacturing defects and in consequence of which he had suffered heavy loss and has undergone severe mental agony. The complainant has given the list of expenses incurred by him and also the loss of working hours due to the consistant failure of the tractor.
10. The complainant further averred that he had obtained the loan from the financial institution for purchasing the tractor for his agricultural purposes. By these material manufacturing defects in the tractor, he could not run the vehicle for his agricultural purposes and also could not make the payment of the instalment amounts to the financial institution to repay the loan and consequently
