NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member
M/s Associated Engineers —Petitioner
versus
Rattan Singh —Respondent
Revision Petition No.3279 of 2009
Decided on 25.8.2015
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Udip Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Mukesh Birla, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Revision petition, having no legal force dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2 (1)(g) & 21 (b) — Deficiency in service — No explanation from side of petitioner as well as from opposite party — As to why tractor of complainant replaced — HELD — This give credence to case of complainant that earlier he provided with defective tractor — Which replaced again by an old and defective tractor — Deficiency on part of petitioner as well as of Opposite Party Auto Agency stand clearly established. [Para 13]
Result: Revision dismissed
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 has preferred this revision against impugned order dated 10.3.2009, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No.140 of 2005.
2. Respondent/Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint on the allegations that he purchased Tractor Make ‘Farmtrac’, Chassis No.293907 and Engine No.297527 from petitioner for a sum of Rs.3,95,326 on 23.9.2001, after obtaining bank loan. The said tractor was found defective and petitioner had replaced that tractor on 16.11.2001 and deducted an amount of Rs.1,95,000 for the old tractor and had given tractor of the same mark ‘Farmtrac’ having Chassis No.273544 and Engine No.277291 on 16.11.2001 Rs.3,90,926. It is stated, that respondent had deposited one installment amounting to Rs.25,881 of that tractor and it was found, that colour of that tractor had automatically changed and it was found it was second hand tractor. When cultivation was started with that tractor, it was found that it was defective and had started giving trouble. At the time of purchase, respondent had requested the petitioner to deliver papers of the tractor, but petitioner was not having original papers of the tractor in its custody. Therefore, for want of supply of the said papers, respondent could not apply for registration of the tractor. The respondent approached the petitioner to supply him new tractor, but he refused to admit the claim of respondent. Hence, consumer complaint was filed with the direction to the petitioner, to change the tractor make ‘Farmtrac’ and to pay Rs.10,000 on account of compensation with litigation cost of Rs.3,000.
3. Petitioner in its written statement, denied that tractor supplied to the respondent was second hand one. It is stated, that respondent had himself selected the tractor from its main dealer—Narian Auto Agency—Opposite Party No.2 (before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur, for short, ‘District Forum’) vide Bill No. 405 dated 16.11.2001. It is alleged, that respondent had availed three services and never lodged any complaint regarding defects in the tractor. It is further stated, that respondent had given his old tractor to it and price of old tractor was adjusted in the price of tractor supplied to him. Further, ‘No Objection’ certificate was to be submitted by the respondent, but he failed to do so. Accordingly, documents of tractor purchased by respondent were withheld by the petitioner.
4. Opposite Party No.2, in its written statement admitted that respondent had purchased ‘Farmtrac’ Make Tractor from the petitioner, bearing Chassis No.273544 and Engine No.277291 on 16.11.2001 for Rs.3,90,126. It has also admitted, that the said tractor was supplied to the respondent in replacement of Tractor bearing Chassis No.293907 and Engine No.297527. However, it denied that respondent ever lodged any complaint regarding the said tractor with it. It is stated that, no complaint was lodged with it despite the fact that three services were got done from the petitioner. It is denied that tractor supplied to respondent in replacement, was second hand tractor.
5. District Forum, vide order dated 17.12.2004 accepted the complaint and directed the petitioner;
“To change the tractor bearing chassis No.273544 and Engine No.277291, make Farmtrec of the complainant with new first-hand tractor of the same make. So far as the award of compensation to the complainant is concerned, there is no denying the fact that he had been mentally harassed. But the fact cannot be forgotten that he had used that tractor for considerable length of time and is supposed to have derived some benefit out of it and that will be suitable compensation to the complainant. The opposite party is, however, directed to pay costs of litigation amounting to Rs.2,000 to the complainant.”
6. Being aggrieved only petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission, which modified orde