Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Gupta, Presiding Member
Vinayak Ran Singh —Petitioner
versus
Kamlakar Krishna Holkar & Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition Nos.630 & 1475 of 2012
Decided on 28.8.2015
For the Petitioner:Mr. Amol N. Suryawanshi and Mr. Shambhu Saran, Advocates
For the Respondent No.1: Ex parte.
For the Respondent No.2:Mr. Shambhu Saran, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
By not placing documentary evidence on record, adverse inference has to be drawn against manufacturer.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21 (b) — Manufacturing defect — Tractor — Engineer after inspecting tractor stated that no manufacturing defect but some minor defects were — Manufacturer not placed on record any job card with regard to repairs done by it — No rebuttal to above report of Commissioner from side of manufacturer as well as its dealer — HELD — It stand clearly established from record that there is deficiency in service on part of manufacturer as well as dealer. [Paras 22 & 25]
Result: Petitions dismissed
V.K. Gupta, Presiding Member—Complainant:—Kamlakar Krishna Holkar filed Consumer Complaint No.298 of 2007 before District Consumer Complaint Redressal Forum, Ahmednagar (for short, ‘District Forum’) stating that he purchased a tractor from Om Tractors—Dealer (Opposite Party No.2). For purchase of this tractor, he availed loan of Rs.6,80,000. The said tractor was manufactured by New Holland Tractors (India) Pvt. Ltd.—Manufacturer (Opposite Party No.1). After purchase, the said tractor ran smoothly only for 15 to 20 days. Thereafter, defects like non- working of engine, gas kit, breaking of level mining rod, Hydrolic strips, defects in wiring and fuse box etc. were noted. Complainant brought his tractor to the manufacturer. Every time repairs were carried out. Thus, complainant could not carry out his agricultural operation. It is further stated, that mechanic of manufacturer visited for repairs of the tractor but showed his inability to repair the same, as it was beyond repairs. Thereafter, complainant issued legal notice dated 30.4.2007. Again on 7.6.2007, round table of trolley was broken but the same was not repaired. Thus, complainant has prayed for replacement of the tractor or in the alternative, sum of Rs.4,88,500 being the cost of tractor be refunded to him. In addition, he has sought compensation of Rs.7,200 and sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs for financial losses and also sought compensation of Rs.500 per day for 10 months as well as Rs.15,000 towards mental stress.
2. Manufacturer in its written statement has stated, that whenever defects were informed by the complainant, same were repaired within warranty period. It is also stated that on 12.7.2005, their engineer inspected the tractor, who did not find any manufacturing defects but some minor defects were found. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on its part.
3. On the other hand, dealer in its written statement has stated, that the tractor has run 340 hours, therefore it cannot be said that tractor was not working smoothly. Whenever tractor was brought for servicing, necessary repairs were carried out. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on its part.
4. District Forum vide order dated 5.2.2008, partly allowed the complaint and directed the manufacturer as well as dealer to repair the tractor free of cost and make it road worthy. In the alternative, it ordered that if the tractor could not be repaired, then both of them shall replace it with same model and same horse power or else refund sum of Rs.4,13,000 with interest @ 10% from 1.7.2007. In addition, Rs.15,000 for mental stress and Rs.15,000 as cost was also awarded.
5. The dealer did not challenge the above order dated 5.2.2008 of the District Forum.
6. Whereas, manufacturer preferred (First Appeal No.243 of 2008) before Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, (for short, ‘State Commission’). The State Commission dismissed the appeal vide its impugned order dated 17.1.2012 and also directed the manufacturer to pay Rs.10,000 for mental agony and Rs.5,000 as cost in the appeal.
7. During pendency of Appeal No.243 of 2008, the complainant filed (Execution Petition No.93 of 2008) for execution of order dated 5.2.2008 of the District Forum.
8. The execution petition was contested by the manufacturer as well as the dealer.
9. District Forum vide order dated 29.9.2008 passed in the execution proceedings, directed the manufacturer and dealer to comply with Clause ‘E’ and ‘F’ of order dated 5.2.2008, passed in the original complaint.
10. The dealer challenged order dated 29.9.2008 of the District Forum by preferring (First Appeal No.506 of 2001) before the State Commission. Since, there was delay of 1084 days in filing of this appeal, the State Commission vide impugned order dated 13.10.2011, dismissed the application for condonation of delay. Consequently, it dismissed dealer’s appeal.
11. Now dealer has challenged order dated 13.10.2011 of the State Commission, by filing (Revision Petition No.630 of
