No Relief for Overcharging Without Credible Evidence; Discounted Price Itself a Concession: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Commission - 2025-07-28

State Consumer Commission Upholds Order Against Tractor Dealer, Dismisses Farmers' Appeal for Higher Compensation

Raipur, Chhattisgarh - The Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed appeals filed by two farmers who claimed a tractor dealership overcharged them and failed to provide promised discounts. While upholding the District Commission's order that found the dealer deficient in service for not providing key documents and repair costs, the State Commission ruled that the farmers failed to produce credible evidence to support their allegations of overcharging for tractors and agricultural equipment.

The bench, comprising Justice Gautam Chourdiya (President) and Mr. Pramod Kumar Verma (Member) , affirmed the District Commission's decision, stating it was legally sound and required no interference.

---

Background of the Dispute

The case originated from complaints filed by two brothers, Sahendra Kumar and Sannu Oyam, against Shivam Tractors Sales, its associated firms, and John Deere Financial India Pvt. Ltd. The brothers alleged that in 2020, they collectively decided to purchase three John Deere tractors from the dealer's Bijapur branch, which was later closed, shifting operations to Jagdalpur.

They claimed they were promised a special price of ₹6,70,000 per tractor with a 10% discount, along with discounts on additional equipment like dozers. However, they alleged that not only were the discounts not provided, but they were also overcharged for the equipment, charged for items never delivered (like a plough and hood), and denied essential documents such as the original Registration Certificate (RC) and insurance policy, despite paying for them. Furthermore, when their tractors malfunctioned, the dealer allegedly refused to honor the warranty, forcing them to pay for repairs out of their own pockets.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bastar, had previously found merit in some of these claims. It had partially allowed their complaints, directing Shivam Tractors to: - Provide the original RC books and insurance policies, with a daily penalty of ₹100 for non-compliance. - Reimburse repair costs incurred by the farmers. - Pay compensation of ₹5,000 for mental agony and ₹3,000 for litigation costs to each complainant.

Dissatisfied with the extent of relief, the farmers appealed to the State Commission, seeking reimbursement for the alleged overcharged amounts and fulfillment of the promised discounts.

Arguments Before the State Commission

Appellants' (Farmers') Arguments: The farmers’ counsel argued that they had paid a total of ₹9,70,000 for tractors and dozers but were duped. They pointed to discrepancies between the quoted price for a dozer set (₹1,25,000) and the price shown in the dealer’s ledger (₹1,96,000). They further contended that the dealer had charged them for a tractor hood priced at ₹44,800 which was never delivered, constituting an unfair trade practice. They sought a refund of the excess amount collected by the dealer.

Respondents' (Dealer's) Arguments: The counsel for Shivam Tractors countered that the farmers' claims were misleading. They argued that the three brothers had collectively purchased three tractors and related equipment. The dealer asserted that a significant discount had already been provided, as the tractors, valued at ₹7,16,832 each, were sold for the agreed-upon price of ₹6,70,000. They denied overcharging for any equipment and stated that the original RC and insurance policy had been duly dispatched to the farmers' registered addresses. They maintained that there was no deficiency in service and that, in fact, the farmers still owed them a small amount for the down payment and insurance premium.

Commission's Findings and Ruling

The State Commission meticulously reviewed the documents and pleadings from both the original case and the appeal. The bench found no credible evidence to substantiate the farmers' claim of being overcharged.

In its pivotal observation, the Commission stated:

"We find that the complainants and their two brothers, Sannu Oyam and Chandru Oyam, were provided tractors worth ₹7,16,832 for ₹6,70,000 under a discount and concession. However, regarding the claim of being overcharged for other purchased parts, no credible document has been presented in the case to prove that the dozer leveller set and other equipment were provided at a higher price."

The Commission noted that the price of agricultural equipment varies based on the manufacturer and quality, and the farmers had failed to provide any proof to counter the dealer's pricing. It concluded that the District Commission had already conducted a detailed analysis of the facts and had passed a well-reasoned order. Finding the farmers' appeals to be without merit, the State Commission dismissed them and confirmed the original order dated July 9, 2024.

The final verdict means the dealer is still liable to provide the pending documents and pay the compensation as ordered by the District Commission, but the farmers will not receive any additional relief for the alleged overcharging or unfulfilled discounts. Both parties were directed to bear their own costs for the appeal.