HMT Ltd. vs Pradeep Singh Bijori

PETITIONERS in this case i.e. HMT Limited and Sanjay Enterprises (its authorized dealer) have filed this revision petition against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) which ruled in favour of one Pradeep Singh (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) who was the original complainant before the District Forum.

THE facts of the case are that the Respondent purchased a tractor from Sanjay Enterprises, authorized dealer of Petitioner No.1 through a bank loan of Rs.3,86,986/- with a warranty of one year. After the first service, this tractor started facing several problems and therefore, it was taken to the showroom wherein some spare parts of the engine found defective were changed and the tractor was returned to the Respondent. However, after some time it again stopped working and the problem continued because of which it had to be attended in the workshop on two or three occasions and the engine also had to be totally repaired. During inspection, the company engineer found rust and old spare parts in the tractor and the Respondent came to know that he had been sold an old tractor and that is why it did not function properly from the beginning. Respondent had to incur economic losses because he could not use the tractor and had to hire another tractor for his agricultural work. He, therefore, filed a complaint on grounds of deficiency in service before the District Forum, Sehore against the Petitioners. Petitioners denied the allegations and stated that whenever the tractor was brought to the showroom it was got repaired and handed over in good working condition and without any delay. THEre were no manufacturing defects. It was also denied that the Respondent had been sold an old tractor. The District Forum after hearing both the parties and weighing the evidence produced before it concluded that the Respondent had been sold an old tractor because of which it started giving trouble right from day one. It, therefore, directed the Petitioners to either replace the present tractor with a new tractor or refund the amount of Rs.3,86,986/- paid by the Respondent. A compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.5,000/- as costs were also awarded. Aggrieved by this order, Petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed summarily by the following order:

It was a clear case where appellants have sold old and used Tractor to respondent pretending it to be a new one. There is further documentary evidence on record to show that the Tractor started giving troubles from day one and had to be repaired a number of times by the respondent. Forum below, in our opinion, was right in holding appellants guilty of deficiency in service and directing them to replace the tractor or refund its price money to the complainant. Amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.500/- awarded, also cannot be terms as unreasonable. We thus, decline admission and dismiss the appeal summarily.

WHEN the case came up before this Commission on 10.09.2009, this Commission passed the following order: The challenge in this revision is to the order dated 6.10.2006 of State Commission dismissing appeal against the order of District Forum dated 28.6.2006 at admission stage. The documents at pages 17, 21, 22, 23 & 24 would show that engine number of the tractor allegedly supplied to the respondent by the petitioner was 3153. However, the Certificate of Registration and the Insurance Certificate would show that the number of the engine is 3150. Respondent alleges that he was sold an old tractor after charging money for a new tractor which fact is denied by the dealer and the manufacturer petitioner. Parties counsel state that Local Commissioner may be appointed to inspect the tractor in question and report about the engine number. In order to effectively decide the present revision, it is desirable that report regarding engine number is obtained. We, therefore, direct the District Forum concerned to appoint a Local Commissioner to inspect the tractor in question and to give report about the number of engine. The Local Commissioner gave his report on 31.10.2007, in which he has certified that the engine number of the said tractor was 3153. The case came up today for oral submissions. Petitioner/HTM Ltd. was represented by its officer, Mr.Rajiv Langar, Asstt. Manager. None was present on behalf of the Respondent.

IN his submissions, Shri Langar, Asstt. Manager of the Petitioner denied that an old tractor was sold to the Respondent and stated that in all the documents produced before the District Forum which included the consignment note delivering the tractor, the job cards as well as the bill of purchase duly signed by the Respondent, clearly stated that the engine number of the tractor sold to the Respondent was 3153. This is also now confirmed by the report of the Local Commissioner which had been appointed at the instance of this Commission. Under these circumstances the wrong engine number in the Registraction Certificate and the insurance papers was probably a bonafide error and cannot be construed as proof that the Respondent was sold an old tractor by the Petitioner. We have considered the contention of Shri Langar and have gone through the evidence on record. We are of the view that the State Commission being the first court of appeal should have examined all relevant matters including the discrepancy in the engine numbers in the two sets of documents and thereafter given its clear finding instead of dismissing the appeal in liminie. We, therefore, set aside the order of the State Commission and remand the case back to it with the direction that it should examine the case afresh after taking into account all relevant facts including the report of the Local Commissioner and decide it on merits in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 17.03.2011. Office is directed to inform the Respondent who was not present in court, of the above date. Since this is an old case, we would urge the State Commission to complete the proceedings within a period of six months. The Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.