JAIDEV PRASAD SINGH vs AUTO TRACTOR LTD.

THESE two appeals arise out of a claim filed by Jaidev Prasad Singh, Appellant in First Appeal No. 19/89 before the State Commission, Bihar. Complaining about certain serious defects in a tractor that was supplied to him by M/s. Auto Tractors Ltd., Pratapgarh (Appellant in first Appeal No. 17/89) and seeking recovery of a sum of Rs. 72,500/- which the complainant had paid by way of cost of the tractor together with interest and a further amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of damages for the inconvenience and loss caused to him on account of the defective functioning and consequent non-utilisation of the said tractor. The State Commission after a detailed discussion of the materials produced before it by both sides came to the conclusion that the tractor supplied to the complainant did suffer from various defects set out by it in its order and that the opposite party No. 1 had failed to rectify those defects in spite of representations having been made by the complainant. In the light of those findings, the State Commission directed the opposite party to get the tractor thoroughly repaired by changing all the defective parts at their own cost within three months from the date of the order. A further direction was also made by the State Commission that the opposite party (Appellant No. 1 in first Appeal No. 17 of 1989) should issue to the complainant a fresh warranty ensuring for a period of six months from the date of delivery of the tractor to him after effecting thorough repairs. In regard to the claim for compensation made by the complainant the State Commission observed that there was not sufficient evidence before it regarding the nature and extent of loss actually suffered by the complainant. However, since the tractor supplied by the opposite party was found to have been defective and it could not, therefore, be used by the complainant for a quite long time the State Commission held that the complainant must be assumed to have suffered loss on that account and that he should, therefore, be granted a ''token compensation'' of Rs. 10,000/-.

FIRST Appeal No. 17 of 1989 has been filed by M/s. Auto Tractors Ltd. & Ors. contending that the finding recorded by the State Commission that the tractor was defective is not warranted by the evidence adduced in the case and that, in any event, the State Commission was not justified in directing the Appellant to give a fresh guarantee for a period of six months from the date on which the tractor is properly repaired and delivered to the complainant. Another ground taken in Appeal No. 17 of 1989 is that the State Commission was not justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of a token of compensation to the complainant (Appellant in Appeal No. 19 of 1989) when he had not adduced any evidence to prove the extent of the alleged losses suffered. First Appeal No. 19 of 1989 has been filed by the complainant and his grievance is that the State Commission should have allowed him the full amount of compensation which he had claimed namely Rupees one lakh instead of allowing to him only a token compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.

Shri Anil Dev Singh, Senior Advocate appeared for the appellant in Appeal No. 17 of 1989. There was no appearance on behalf of Shri Jaidev Prasad Singh but he has intimated to this Commission that on account of financial constraint he is unable to come to Delhi to represent his case and he has requested that the matter may be decided by this Commission after going through records.

WE have carefully gone through the records of the case and given our anxious consideration to all aspects of the case inclusive of the points which were urged by Shri Anil Dev Singh. Counsel for M/s. Auto Tractors Ltd. as well as those raised in the written submissions filed by the first respondent. On a scrutiny of the materials available on record we do not find it possible to say that the State Commission has committed an error in arriving at the finding that the tractor supplied to the complainant was defective in several important aspects. The direction given by the State Commission that the tractor should be thoroughly repaired by the Appellant in Appeal No. 17 of 1989 within a period of three months was, therefore, fully justified. Shri Anil Dev Singh submitted that the further direction issued to his client by the State Commission to give fresh warranty for a period of six months from the date of delivery of the tractor after carrying out all necessary repair is not warranted under the provisions of the Act. Counsel, however, stated before us that his client is prepared to give an undertaking before this Commission that his clients M/s. Auto Tractors Ltd. will maintain the tractor in a state of proper repair, free of charge, for a period of six months from the date on which it is delivered to the complainant. We consider that even if technically there is any force in the aforesaid contention put forward by the Counsel, this is not a matter in respect of which any interference by us is called for with the order passed by the State Commission. We would only like to make it clear that this will not form a precedent for future cases.

ON the question of damages, it is, not doubt, true that the complainant has not adduced any material to show the exact extent of loss suffered by him. But even in such a case, when it is abundantly clear that tangible loss must have resulted to the complainant by reason of the defective condition of the tractor supplied to him and the failure on the part of the opposite party to rectify those defects which rendered the tractor unfit for use, it is only just and proper that the Redressal Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act should quantify to the best of its judgment the loss that can reasonably be estimated as having been suffered by the complainant. The State Commission has only discharged this duty vested in it when it proceeded to assess and award reasonable compensation to the complainant. The direction issued by the State Commission that the Opposite Party should pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of compensation, cannot, therefore, be said to be vitiated by any illegality. As regards the plea for enchantment of compensation put forward by the appellant in Appeal No. 19 of 1989, we are of the view that on the state of the evidence available on record, the compensation fixed by the State Commission is quite fair and reasonable. The order of the State Commission is accordingly confirmed. Both the appeals will accordingly stand dismissed. Appeal dismissed.