Muktaji Vishnuji Chemate vs ESCORTS LTD.

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 7.1.2013 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 2667/2006, Escorts Ltd. & Ors. v. Mr. Muktaji Vishnuji Chemate & Anr., by which while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum allowing complaint, was modified. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner purchased tractor on 10.8.2004 from opposite party No. 5/Respondent No. 2, which was manufactured by O.P. Nos. 1 to 4/Respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 5. Respondents advertised and assured that tractor would require 2.5 litre diesel per hour whereas it was consuming 6 litres diesel per hour from time -to -time. Tractor was taken to O.P. No. 5 and he changed some parts but problem was not solved. Alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite party, complainant filed complaint for replacement of tractor and damages. Opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 resisted complaint and submitted that there was no independent expert evidence and in absence of that there was no manufacturing defect in the tractor. It was further submitted that complaints of complainant were attended promptly and consumption of diesel depends upon use of tractor, load being carried, drought conditions and other related aspects and prayed for dismissal of complaint. O.P. No. 5 also resisted complaint and submitted that tractor consumed only 2.2 litres of diesel for 16 kms. and there was no defect. It was further submitted that if there was any manufacturing defect, he was not responsible and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint partly against O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 and directed them to replace tractor by new one, having no manufacturing defect and further allowed Rs. 10,000 as compensation, Rs. 5,000 towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation. Appeal filed by O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and learned State Commission modified the order of the District Forum and directed them to replace the engine by new engine, against which this revision petition has been filed.

HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint and directed opposite parties to replace the tractor by new defect free tractor but learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal partly and directing opposite parties to replace engine, hence revision petition be admitted.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner was asked to place on record any document/assurance regarding consumption of 2 1/2 litres diesel per hour as well expert report that tractor was consuming 6 litres diesel per hour. In spite of only such document on record learned District Forum allowed replacement of tractor by new tractor without any reason. Learned State Commission rightly modified the order and directed opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 to replace only the engine by new engine. As alleged in the complaint, deficiency in tractor was only regarding consumption of excess diesel, learned State Commission rightly directed opposite parties to replace engine. No other deficiency was pointed out in the tractor and in such circumstances; learned State Commission rightly modified the order. There was no necessity to replace tractor by a new tractor.

WE do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.