ANAND TRAILORS vs PRAHLAD ANANDA MARODKAR

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order of State Commission dismissing the appeal against the order of the District Forum and allowing the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant, based on quotation given by the petitioner, purchased a trailor for Rs. 79,500/- for his tractor against given specifications. Alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner, complainant filed a complaint stating that the pipe fencing on the trailor was not given on the trailor supplied and that the trailor measured only 9''.9" x 5''.9" x 2'' against the promise to supply trailor measuring 10'' x 6'' x 2''. For these deficiencies the complainant sought relief of Rs. 2.85 lakh. District Forum after hearing both the parties directed the petitioner to replace the trailor and pay Rs. 1,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 500/- as cost. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed in a summary manner and without a speaking order. Hence, the revision petition. The respondent having been absent in spite of notice on the previous date of hearing was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte.

IT was argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the trailor supplied was as per quotation which is supported by a certificate of a Testing Institute. Both the lower Forums erred in not appreciating the material brought before them. It was also argued by the Counsel that perusal of the quotation shows that tyres to be supplied were of the specification 8.25 x 20 whereas at the time of delivery, the complainant demanded tyre size of 9.0 x 20 which costed Rs. 3,000/- more which he agreed to adjust against the pipe fencing on the trailor worth Rs. 3,000/-. It is on this account that the pipe fencing was not supplied with the trailor.

WE have seen the material on record. Trailor size quoted on 15.6.1998 carried the dimensions of 10'' x 6'' x 2'' (3050 cm. x 1830 cm. x 610 cm.). As per test report of Vietona Jubilee Technical Institute the dimensions of the trailor were 4160 cm. x 1830 x 1800 cm. + 50 mm. It is admitted position that as per complaint filed before the District Forum the tyres size supplied were 9.0 x 2.0. We also see the tyres size given in the quotation by the petitioner to be 8.25 x 20. Both the lower Forums did not appear to have considered the material on record. In fact there is no discussion on the rival contentions in the order of the District Forum. The State Commission also passed a non-speaking brief order dismissing the appeal.

IN view of the above discussions, based on material on record, we are unable to sustain the order of both the lower Forums, hence set aside. Revision Petition is allowed. No order on costs.