JAGESHWAR PRASAD vs R.R.AUTOMOBILES

ALL the aforesaid appeals are being disposed of by this common order. The appellants are the complainants who have filed their separate appeals against the order dated 4.4.1997 passed in their Complaint Case Nos. 127/Forum/95, 68/Forum/96, 128/Forum/95, and 119/Forum/ 95 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satna (for short the ''District Forum''). The opposite party No. 2 that is V.S.T. Tillers Tractors Limited is the manufacturer of Tillers Tractors. M/s. Punjab Agro Agency, Krishna Nagar, Satna was its authorised dealer. After termination of dealership of M/s. Punjab Agro Agency, M/s. R.R. Automobiles was appointed as the authorised dealer of the manufacturers of Tillers Tractors.

THE complainants of Complaint Case No. 127/Forum/95, and 119/Forum/95 purchased the said tractor from the then authorised dealer M/s. Punjab Agro Agency which was impleaded as party as opposite party No. 1 in the two complaints while complainants of Complaint Case Nos. 68/Forum/95, and 128/Forum/95 purchased their tractors from R.R. Automobiles, which was impleaded as party as opposite party No. 1 in the said complaints. THE complainants by their separate complaints averred that the tractor was purchased by them even in the six months warrantee period could not run properly and smoothly. THE tractors were taken to the workshop of the authorised dealer in the warrantee period for removing the manufacturing defects. But the authorised dealer even did not have the parts to replace which the dealer called for from the manufacturer, but inspite of extensive repairs the manufacturing defects could not be removed. THE details of which have been given in complaints. The complainant reside in interior villages and used to bear heavy expenditure in bringing the tractors to the workshop of the authorised dealer at Satna from a long distance of about 40 to 50 kms. Even after the replacement of engine of the tractor of the complainant of Case No. 119/ Forum/95, the tractor could not be made functional. Therefore, the complainants in their complaints prayed for replacement of the tractor by new one or for refund of the cost of the tractor trolley. In defence version the allegations were denied. The complainants filed their affidavits and also filed the affidavits of the local mechanics 1Ramsuresh Mistri, Munnilal Kushwaha. The opposite party filed the affidavits of their Expert Mechanics.

The District Forum held that the complainants have failed to establish the manufacturing defects and deficiency in service. Each of tractor was attended for repairs when brought to workshop of the authorised dealer and the defects were removed. The claim of the complainants to replace the tractor by new or to refund the cost price was found to be unnatural, hence the complaints were dismissed.

WE have heard Mr. B.L. Agrawal and Mr. Mohan Chouksey, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.K. Menon, learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. When a person buys a motor vehicle he expects that it would be functional and run smoothly without giving any trouble for a reasonable time in any case under warrantee period. But a vehicle which needs a frequent and extensive repairs even in the warrantee period of its purchase cannot be said to be a new and functional vehicle. It is evident from the record that the tractors were taken to the authorised dealer for repairs, the tractors were repaired, in one case even the whole engine was replaced, but even then the tractors could not run smoothly.

THE complainants are illiterate, rustic and poor agriculturists who have purchased the tractors by borrowing amount from the financial institutions. In such a situation when the tractors could not function properly and the manufacturing defects are not rectified it would 1give rise to the conclusion that the tractors supplied were beyond repairs, as is the view of this Commission in recent decision relating to two wheeler automobile in case of General Manager, Sanghi Automobiles v. Manoj Verma, Appeal No. 558/98, decided on 13.11.1998. In the cases in hand the complaints have been dismissed as the complainants have failed to establish the manufacturing defects by leading legal evidence. In our view in the circumstances of the cases the approach of the District Forum ought to have been to get the tractors examined by an Expert Engineer so as to find out the truth in the allegations of the complaints as in the villages the mechanics are also illiterate persons. Therefore, if there was some discrepancy in the bills or cash memos it was all the more necessary to get the tractors examined by the Expert Engineer. On examination of the tractor if the manufacturing defects as alleged in the complaint about the particular tractor then the District Forum ought to have dealt with the cases for passing the order in accordance with Section 14(1) of the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that the cases should go back for deciding the complaints afresh in accordance with law after the examination of the tractors by the Expert Engineer. The opposite parties if so advised, shall be also at liberty to depute their expert for examination of the tractors on the alleged complaints of the manufacturing defects. If the defects are found, the District Forum shall pass orders accordingly. Parties to appear before the District Forum on 23.12.1998 for which no notice shall be issued to the parties as they have been noticed here through their Counsel. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The order of the District Forum passed in all the cases is set aside and the cases are sent back for deciding them afresh. A copy of this order be conveyed to the parties and be sent to the District Forum along with the record of each case. In the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs. Appeals allowed. ______________