SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member
Kanhaiyalal Rawat —Petitioner
versus
Dealer Angad Tractor —Respondent
Revision Petition No.3332 of 2011
(Against the Order dated 14/07/2011 in Appeal No. 231/2011 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)
Decided on 1.7.2015

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mohd. Ani sur Rehman, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Janak Tiwari, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Complainant cannot approach Consumer Fora in a lackadaisical manner.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Automobile—Supply of old model Tractor—Complainant has produced cogent solid and unflappable evidence, yet, all these documents of infinite importance pale into insignificance because complainant has approached Fora in a lackadaisical manner—It was falsely argued that petitioner is illiterate person—Defence set up by respondent that he filed case after receipt of notice on payment of balance amount from bank, assumes importance—Mechanic was called to find out year of manufacture after a lapse of three years—Revision petition dismissed. (Paras 5 to 8)

       Result : Revision Petition dismissed.

ORDER

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—Shri Kanhaiyalal Lal Rawat, the complainant, purchased one tractor from Maa Chandi Tractors, Navkar Parisar, Pulgaon Road, Durg through Shri Narendra Kumar Chandrakar dealer from Angad Tractors on 20.11.2007. The said tractor was financed by Durg Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank, Branch Gurur. The complainant felt that the tractor was of old model. Shri Narendra Kumar Chandrakar gave a written statement that the tractor, which was given to the complainant, was of new model. It was also mentioned that if tractor was found to be of old model then the opposite party will give new tractor to the complainant otherwise legal action may be taken against him. He gave the warranty of two years. The complainant was informed that the tractor was of 2007 model. However, it is transpired that the tractor was of 2003 model. The OP cheated the complainant and did not give the caze wheel worth Rs.9,500/- and Riper costing Rs.56,000/- though the amount was given to him. The vehicle was defective from the very start. It was repaired and dealer, Shri Narendra Kumar Chandrakar promised that he would change the vehicle but the needful was never done. The petitioner had to suffer huge loss in agriculture. Notice was also given for replacement of the vehicle on 3.2.2008 but it was replied only on 15.12.2008 wherein the claim of the complainant was denied. Consequently, the complainant filed a case before the District Forum claiming Rs.3,13,000/-, costs of the tractor, loss of agriculture in the sum of Rs. 2 lakh, Rs.3000/- as costs of the suit, total amount being Rs.5,16,000/- alonwith 13% interest from the above said opposite party.

2. The OP contested this case. The main plea taken by it is that the case is barred by time, which was filed on 22.3.2010 without any application for condonation of delay.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant has placed reliance on the following documents. The written statement made on Indian Non-Judicial Stamp Paper in the sum of Rs.50/- appears to be a crucial document, which mentions about the following statement:

“I Gajendra (Narendra) agreed that the tractor which I am selling whose Chasis No. is 5240D00615 is new, if it is found of old model then I will give new tractor if I will not give the new tractor then legal action may be taken. The Guarranty (Warranty) is of two years.

Witness

Ghurau Ram Chandi Tractor Durg

Near Jalaram Vatika

Gajendra Chandrakar”

The same is the translated copy of Hindi version.

4. This is an indisputable fact that Shri Gajendra alias Narendra is the person mentioned on the title of this case. The said document is supported by the statement/affidavit made by the sole witness. It was also brought to my notice that the complainant has produced the affidavit of one Shri Itwari Ram Sahu. Paras 2, 3, 4 and 5 of his affidavit are reproduced as under:-

“2. That I am the authorized mistry of Angat Tractor Co. I on 22-10-2010 on request of complainant Kanhiyalal when to his house for repairing the tractor. The complainant asked me to tell me the engine no. and chesis no. and model.

3. That I inspected the said tractor very minutely and after checking it I found that the said tractor is of model 2004 and it engine No. D-53800615 and chesis No. is D0524200615 and in the RC book which was available with the complainant the model No. was of 2005.

4. That the present vehicle of the complainant is of 2004 model and in RC book the model is of 2005, there is much difference.

5. That in the said tractor previously also I have done the repairing work and at present the said tractor is in the stop condition.”

It is contended that under these circumstances, the complaint should be allowed as prayed.

5. Undoubtedly, the complainant has produced cogent solid and unflappable evidence, yet, all these documents of infinite importance pale into insignificance because the complainant has approached the fora in a lackadaisical man







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top