Back
ORISSA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CUTTACK
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.K. Patra, President &
Mr. Subash Mahtab, Member
ORISSA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR.—Appellants
versus
EKADASI SAMAL & ORS.—Respondents
Appeal Nos. 785 & 831 of 1996—Decided on 29.7.2005
Appeal No. 785/96 :
For the Appellants :M/s. B. Baug & Associates, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Ms. Mira Ghose & Associates, Advocates.
Appeal No. 831/96 :
For the Appellant :M/s. B.S. Tripathy & Associates, Advocates.
For the Respondents:M/s. B. Baug & Associates, Advocates.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the consumer's right to claim compensation for manufacturing defects under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the liability of the manufacturer and dealer in such cases.
Headnote:
Consumer Dispute - Manufacturing Defects - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(n), Section 2(1)(m), Section 2(1)(i), Section 2(1)(f), Section 2(1)(e), Section 2(1)(j), Section 2(1)(k), Section 2(1)(l), Section 2(1)(h), Section 2(1)(c), Section 2(1)(a), Section 2(1)(b), Section 2(1)(q), Section 2(1)(s), Section 2(1)(t), Section 2(1)(v), Section 2(1)(w), Section 2(1)(x), Section 2(1)(y), Section 2(1)(z) - The court discussed the existence of manufacturing defects in the tractor, the warranty period, and the consumer's right to claim compensation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The interpretation of the term 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) and the liability of the manufacturer and dealer under Section 2(1)(o) were crucial in determining the consumer's rights and the appellants' liabilities. The court's decision was influenced by the legal provisions related to consumer rights and the obligations of manufacturers and dealers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent purchased a tractor for agricultural use, but it developed manufacturing defects soon after the purchase, rendering it unusable. The respondent sought replacement or compensation from the manufacturer and dealer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tractor had manufacturing defects and remained idle, causing substantial loss to the respondent. It dismissed the appeals and directed the appellants to compensate the respondent.
Issues: Existence of manufacturing defects, consumer's rights under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, liability of the manufacturer and dealer, and the commercial use of the tractor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the tractor had manufacturing defects, and the respondent was entitled to compensation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It also determined that the respondent was a consumer and had purchased the tractor for personal use, not commercial purposes.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the appellants were directed to compensate the respondent.
Mr. Justice R.K. Patra, President—Both the appeals are directed against the order dated 26.9.1996 passed by the Dhenkanal District Forum in C.D. Case No. 38 of 1995. By the said order appellant in C.D. Appeal No. 831 of 1996 has been directed to make on the repairs of the tractor belonging to the respondent No. 1 within two months and bring the same to its normal working condition. The said appellant (vide C.D. Appeal No. 831 of 1996) and appellants in C.D. Appeal No. 785 of 1996 have been jointly and/or severally directed to compensate the respondent No. 1 by paying a sum of Rs. 10,000 and costs of Rs. 500.
2. Both the appeals being analogous, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
3. The appellant in C.D. Appeal No. 831 of 1996 is the manufacturer of the tractor whereas appellants in C.D. Appeal No. 785 of 1996 are the dealers of the tractor in question.
4. The complainant in both the appeals is respondent No. 1. His case is that he took loan amounting to Rs. 1,77,462 from the Co-operative Agricultural Rural Development Bank, Kamakhyanagar and with that amount he purchased a HMT tractor manufactured by the appellant in C.D. Appeal No. 831 of 1996 through the dealer who are appellants in C.D. Appeal No. 785 of 1996. He purchased the tractor for intensive cultivation of his land. He got delivery of the same on 17.11.1992 through the appellants in C.D. Appeal No. 785 of 1996. After one month of its use its hydrolic sinking, bevel penion and crown penion were damaged because of inherent manufacturing defects. The damage was within the warranty period. Due to such defects he could not operate the tractor. It remained idle on account of which the differential shaft and C.I. shaft were also damaged. He could not utilize the tractor for his cultivation for which his agricultural operation was substantially hampered. He brought this fact to the notice of the appellants who deputed their mechanic but it was of no practical use. In the circumstances, he prayed for replacement of the tractor with a new one or in the alternative to pay the costs in addition to compensation of Rs. 1,50,000.
5. The appellants filed their written version denying their liabilities.
6. The District Forum on consideration of the materials produced before it has held that the tractor in question started giving trouble one or two months after the purchase and although mechanic was deputed for several times he was unsuccessful because of the manufacturing defects. It further held that as the tractor remained unutilized even after the warranty period, the respondent No. 1 could not put the tractor into service.
7. There is no dispute that the respondent No. 1 purchased the tractor and took delivery of the same on 17.11.1992.
8. The appellants contended before the District Forum that as the tractor was used for commercial purpose the respondent No. 1 cannot be held to be a consumer. It was rightly rejected because there was no material produced before the District Forum to show that the respondent No. 1 at any time used the tractor for commercial purpose. On the other hand, the materials available on the record would show that the respondent No. 1 purchased the tractor for cultivating his own land.
9. The following documents produced by the parties would show that the tractor started giving trouble soon after it was purchased.
(i) By letter dated 8.12.1992 the respondent No. 1 brought to the notice of the dealer that the hydrolic system of the plough was not properly working and the same was dragging on earth.
(ii) By letter dated 15.1.1993, respondent No. 1 again wrote to the dealer saying that although the mechanic had come and checked the tractor it was of no consequence because the left side bearing of the tractor was found to have been damaged.
(iii) In the representation dated 4.6.1993 the respondent No. 1 wrote to the Co-operative Bank from which he took loan saying that the tractor was giving constant trouble. In another set of repres
