MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. vs RAMLAL PATIDAR & ORS.

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned orders dated 14.02.2006 and 21.03.2006, passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 1166/2004, Ramlal Patidar vs. Radheyshyam & Ors., vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhar, dated 13.05.2004, in Consumer Complaint No. 79/2003, dismissing the said complaint, filed by the present respondent no. 1, was set aside.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent no. 1, Ramlal Patidar purchased a tractor from OPs 1 & 2/respondents no. 2&3 Jamna Tractors, who were dealers of the said tractor, manufactured by the present petitioner, Mahindra & Mahindra, after obtaining loan from the OP-5/State Bank of Indore. The said tractor was purchased on 23.11.2002 for an amount of Rs. 2,88,580/-. The main allegation made by the complainant is that the tractor was sold in the year 2002, whereas it was a 2001 model tractor. It has been alleged in the consumer complaint that the dealers, OPs No. 1&2 obtained blank signed stamp papers from the son of the complainant on the pretext of preparation of the necessary documents. When the tractor was delivered, the year of manufacture in the insurance documents was mentioned as 2002, whereas in the registration certificate, it was mentioned as model 2001 and in this way, fraud was committed with the complainant. Besides, many defects were found in the tractor, which required repair works. The OPs No. 1&2 sent their mechanics and got the repairs done. Various parts of the tractor were also found to be old and of inferior quality. The complainant made a report with the local police about the fraud, forgery and cheating done with him. A legal notice dated 28.04.2003 was also sent to the OPs, which was received by them, but they did not give any reply. The manufacturer, Mahindra & Mahindra sent their reply, wherein it was directed to examine the facts narrated in the notice. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OPs that he should be provided a tractor of model 2002 of Mahindra & Mahindra Company or in the alternative, the amount of Rs. 2,88,580/- be refunded to him alongwith interest.

The District Forum, vide their order dated 08.8.2003, dismissed the complaint after taking into account the averments of the parties. Being aggrieved against the said order, the complainant challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission, which was allowed vide order dated 14.02.2006. It was observed by the State Commission that the respondents had sold the tractor manufactured in the year 2001 to the complainant by reporting the same as that of year 2002 and hence, committed unfair trade practice with him. The State Commission also concluded that it was clear from the affidavit and job cards that the tractor sold to the complainant was defective, due to which, it had to be repaired time and again and hence, the complainant was deprived of its proper use. The State Commission directed that a new tractor should be given to the complainant in place of the old one, OR in the alternative, the payment of Rs. 2,88,580/- should be made to him by the manufacturer and dealer jointly and severally alongwith 9% interest from the date of filing the complaint before the District Forum i.e. 08.08.2003 until actual payment. A review petition filed before the State Commission by the State Bank of Indore was allowed, vide order dated 21.03.2006 and it was ordered that a correction should be made in the last para of the impugned order, saying that the liability for giving relief jointly and severally shall be that of OPs 1 to 4 i.e. the dealer and the manufacture and hence, the Bank shall not be liable to provide any relief to the complainant. Being aggrieved against the said order of the State Commission, the manufacturer is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

During arguments before me, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that no liability could be imposed upon them, if the dealer had committed any fault while supplying the vehicle to the complainant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents no. 2&3, dealer stated that since the tractor in question was found to be defective, the manufacturer cannot escape its responsibility. The State Commission held that it was clear from the job cards etc. that the tractor sold to the complainant was defective.

The learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no. 1 stated that the impugned order had not been challenged by the dealer by way of any revision petition etc. and hence, the impugned order had become final vis-a-vis the said dealer. Moreover, it was clear from the material on record that a second-hand defective tractor had been sold to the complainant by the OPs.

I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

The State Commission, vide its impugned order, dated 14.02.2006 has brought out clearly that OPs No. 1 & 2 dealers had sold a tractor manufactured in the year 2001 to the complainant, making him believe that the year of manufacture of the said tractor was 2002. On the registration certificate, the year of manufacture has been mentioned as 2001, whereas in the insurance policy, the said year has been stated to be 2002. The State Commission also brought out clearly that the tractor had to be repaired many times, because the same was defective. The said impugned order has not been challenged by the OPs No. 1 & 2/respondents no. 2&3 dealer and hence, the same has become final vis-a-vis the dealer. In so far as the liability of the petitioner/manufacturer is concerned, it is clear that the said tractor was found to be defective for which, it had to be sent for repairs again and again. The manufacturer cannot, therefore, escape its liability in the matter, because the dealer is selling a product duly manufactured by them only. The State Commission, vide impugned order, has held the dealer as well as the manufacturer liable jointly and severally for providing relief to the complainant. It was the duty of the manufacturer as well, to have ensured that the vehicle was provided in a defect-free condition to the complainant.

The word ''defect'' has been defined in Section 2(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as follows:-

"(f) "defect" means any or in the fault, imperfection shortcoming quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods;"

In so far as the consumer/complainant is concerned, it was the duty of the manufacturer as well as the dealer to ensure that the defects in the vehicle were duly removed to the satisfaction of the complainant. The matter has been examined in a number of judgments given by the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Commission as well. It has been mentioned in the order of this Commission dated 19.09.2013 in Revision Petition No. 4146/2012 & others, Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. Chandan Mondal & Ors. as follows:-

"when it is made out that tractor in question is a ''defective'' vehicle, in the strict technical sense or not, it becomes the paramount duty of the OPs to attend to this aspect and ensure that that defects are removed and the vehicle is delivered in a perfectly fit condition to the consumer alongwith a certificate of fitness..........."

Based on the discussion above, it is held that there is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission on 14.02.2006, read with order dated 21.03.2006. The present Revision Petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed and a direction is given to the respondents to implement the order of the State Commission within a period of four weeks from today.