Escorts Ltd. vs DIPAK KISAN NANDGUDE

PETITIONER is the manufacturer of tractors and was one of the opposite parties before the District Forum on a complaint filed by the respondent-complainant. In the complaint, dealer was also a party as first opposite party. But in the petition, the dealer has not impleaded as a respondent.

COMPLAINT was about the defective supply of the tractor manufactured by the petitioner and sold to the complainant by the dealer. Tractor was purchased on 27.5.1996. From the very day it was not giving proper service and there was defect in the gear box. On 26.8.1996, gear box was opened up and the main shaft was replaced. Yet the tractor was not giving proper service. Complainant had to take the tractor to dealer for a number of times for repairs but without any satisfactory result. He filed a complaint before the District Forum. Various objections were raised. However, on merit it was the stand of the opposite parties that the defect in the tractor developed due to mishandling and improper driving of the tractor by the complainant. District Forum afer considering all the evidence on record, allowed the complaint and directed the replacement of the gear box of the tractor and also awarded damages to the complainant to the extent of Rs. 75,000/- against the dealer as well as the manufacturer. Aggrieved manufacturer went in Appeal to the State Commission without impleading the dealer. State Commission on the date of hearing refused to grant any adjournment to the petitioner on the ground that its Advocate was not available. State Commission observed that the complainant who is the farmer had to come from Ahmadnagar to Bombay on 5 occasions and there was no ground for any adjournment. State Commission after examining the whole aspect of the matter, affirmed the finding of the District Forum. Order of the District Forum awarding compensation was held to be quite reasonable considering that the complainant was paying interest on the loan taken from the Bank for purchase of tractor and when the tractor was not giving proper service for the agricultural purposes. State Commission, therefore, dismissed the appeal.

Still feeling aggrieved, the manufacturer has come before us. There has been a concurrent finding that the tractor required replacement of the gear box and also as to the loss suffered by the complainant. One can imagine the plight of an agriculturist or for that matter of any person who buys a new tractor after taking loan from the Bank and finds it is defective causing various visits for rectification of defects. No question of law arises and we do not find any jurisdictional error committed by the State Commission for us to interfere in the matter in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Petition is dismissed. R.P. dismissed.