JNP AGRO-SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. vs K.K.JOSE

THIS petition by the manufacturer of an agricultural machinery. Petitioner was the first opposite party in the complaint filed by the first respondent complaining manufacturing defect in that machinery. Second respondent before us is the dealer of the manufacturer-petitioner. In his complaint in the District Forum, first respondent complained that the dealer had sold him the agricultural machinery on 4.11.1997 for a consideration of Rs. 52,000/-. But this was defective and on five different occasions he took the machinery for removal of the defect which was not done. Notice was issued to both the opposite parties. Petitioner did not care and sent only letter to District Forum denying its liability. Dealer, however, admitted that there was defect in the machinery and alleged that it reported the matter to the petitioner as it was having manufacturing defect but nothing was done. District Forum directed refund of the price of the machinery with 12% interest from the date of the complaint with costs amounting to Rs. 200/-. Complainant filed affidavit. He was not cross- examined by either of the two opposite parties. On the basis of the evidence led by the complainant. District Forum allowed complaint.

AGGRIEVED, the manufacturer filed appeal before the State Commission. It was dismissed. It was the case of the petitioner that he received only Rs. 39,000/- and he could not be asked to refund the total purchase price of Rs. 52,000/-. Manufacturer also complained that its dealer did not inform it of any defect in the machinery sold by the dealer. State Commission had considered all the aspects of the matter and observed that the manufacturer received Rs. 39,000/-, is a matter between the manufacturer and the dealer and that the consumer could not be made to suffer. This petition, therefore, was filed by the petitioner-manufacturer challenging the order of the Stats Commission. We do not find it is a fit case to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed. ______________