AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE appellants are challenging the order passed by the District Forum, Kolhapur in Complaint No. 152/96. THE District Forum has directed the appellants to pay an amount of Rs. 39,462/- with 18% interest from 24.12.1996 till the date of payment plus Rs. 500/- towards cost and Rs. 5,000/- towards mental and physical agony. THE facts of the case in brief are that the respondent/complainant booked a "Massy Ferguson 245" model tractor manufactured by Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd., Madras. He booked the tractor by paying the full amount of Rs. 2,48,840/-. THE appellants did not foward the money to the manufacturers with the result that the vehicle came to be delivered on 15.3.1996 and during this period, there was an increase in the price of the tractor to the tune of Rs. 15,665/-. THE respondent/ complainant had made a complaint to the manufacturers who had informed him on 3.1.1996 that the appellant dealers had not passed on the money to the manufacturers till then and, therefore, there was no question of supplying the tractor by the manufacturer. THErefore, the complainants requested the Forum to make the loss good suffered by him on account of interest as well as the increase in the price of the tractor. THE Forum allowed it and, therefore, this appeal.
MR. Dharmadhikari, Advocate appeared for the appellant. MR. Kenkre, Advocate appeared for the respondent No. 1/original complainant and the respondent No. 2 remained absent though duly noticed. They have submitted written notes of arguments. We have carefully perused the impugned order, the appeal-memo and the written notes of arguments submitted by the learned Counsels for both the parties. The point for our consideration is short and simple. The complainant booked the tractor on 5.10.1995 by paying the full price of the tractor amounting to Rs. 2,48,840/- with an assurance of an early delivery. However, for about 3 months, the amount remained with the appellant dealers and they failed to pass on the money to the manufacturers. On receipt of the funds, the manufacturers released the tractor which was delivered by the appellants on 15.3.1996. In the instant case, obviously the manufacturers are not guilty for the delay in the delivery of the tractor. The appellants have no-where explained as to why they retained the money for about 3 months. In fact, they passed on the money only after the complainant showed the letter received from the manufacturers to the effect that the appellants have not passed on the money to the manufacturers. We see no substance in the submissions made by the appellant. They are definitely guilty. They have used the funds for their own benefits for about 3 months causing financial loss to the poor cultivator. Their legal submission that the tractor was being purchased for commercial purpose is not at all sustainable. The District Forum has elaborately dealt with this point and we agree with the view taken by the District Forum. The complainant being an agriculturist had booked the tractor for being used for himself for earning his livelihood. There was no question of any commercial use. In view of the facts brought out before the District Forum and in view of the facts and circumstances in this case, we find no substance in the appeal and the same has to be dismissed. Accordingly, the following order. ORDER
The appeal is dismissed. The order of the District Forum is confirmed. The appellants have unnecessarily dragged the respondent No. 1 in the appeal before us when the entire case is against them. It is, therefore, necessary to award some cost to the respondent No. 1. We feel it proper if a cost of Rs. 2,000/- is awarded to the respondent No. 1/original complainant. The appellants are directed to pay the cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant/respondent and to comply with the order passed by the District Forum. Appeal dismissed with costs.