AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS revision petition challenges the order dated 27.10.2006 of the Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (in short, ''the State Commission'') in appeal no. 75 of 2000. By this order, the State Commission affirmed the finding of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai (in short, ''the District Forum'') regarding supply of a defective power tiller by and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party - OP/ respondent (petitioner in this revision petition) in repairing it within the warranty period and modified the award of the District Forum only to the extent of reducing the amount ofRs.21,000/- awarded by way of compensation and cost to Rs.8,000/-. The District Forum had directed the petitioner to replace the (allegedly) defective power tiller with a new one or pay Rs.84,000/- towards the cost of the power tiller, in addition to the aforesaid compensation and cost. It had also directed the petitioner to pay interest @ 18% per annum from 23.11.1999 till the date of payment, if the petitioner failed to make the payment by 22.11.1999.
THE respondent was the complainant before the District Forum. He alleged that he had purchased a Mitsubishi Shakti power tiller for Rs.84,000/- on 30.06.1999 from the petitioner/OP and the East Panchayat Union, Madurai had recommended admissible subsidy for this purchase. He further stated that he was using the power tiller strictly in accordance with the operating instructions of the OP, to plough his land as well as the lands of others on hire, and earn his livelihood by means of self-employment. After three months, the power tiller developed several defects and in spite of repeated requests the OP failed to rectify the defects. He further alleged that the power tiller sold by the OP was not a new one and that the OP was in the habit of selling old power tiller after reconditioning/re-painting them. Though he sent a legal notice, the OP did not respond, and hence he filed the consumer complaint.
IN its written version, the OP denied the allegations and stated that the complainant had not paid any money to it for the alleged purchase of the said power tiller. It clarified that power tillers were purchased by the Tamilnadu Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. (TAIC) from the original dealers of the Mitsubishi Shakti power tillers (viz., V. S. T. Tillers Tractors Ltd., Bangalore). One of these power tillers was sold by TAIC to the complainant under the delivery note-cum-receipt dated 30.06.1998 for Rs.56,200/- (after deducting the Government subsidy of Rs.30,000/-) which the complainant paid to the TAIC. Further, under the delivery note dated 30.06.1997, the TAIC sent the power tiller with specific engine and chassis numbers to the complainant, which he signed in token of receipt of the machine on the same date. However, as per the guarantee requirements of the aforesaid V. S. T. Tillers Tractors Ltd., of which the petitioner was one of the local authorised dealer (for non-subsidised power tillers and three free services for subsidised power tillers sold by the TAIC) at Madurai, the complainant brought the power tiller to the petitioner''s premises to get the said machine inspected and registered for the purposes of free servicing etc. After inspection and verification of various components and accessories, the petitioner issued what was titled loosely as ''Delivery Note'' on the same date, i.e., 30.06.1997 which was signed by the petitioner''s representative and the complainant. It is on the basis of this document (which was the only documentary evidence purporting to show "purchase" of the power tiller that the complainant produced before the District Forum, as Exhibit A 1) that he claimed to have the power tiller from the petitioner on payment of Rs.84,000/- . From the aforesaid sequence of facts (in respect of which the OP/petitioner had filed all the requisite documents before the District Forum), the petitioner prayed for dismissal of the complaint because there was no buyer - seller relation between the complainant and the petitioner.
HOWEVER, based on the document (the so called ''Delivery Note'' issued by the OP), the District Forum came to the conclusion that the petitioner/OP had indeed sold the power tiller to the complainant for Rs.84,000/- and that there was deficiency in service on its part in not attending to the defects in the power tiller within the warranty period. On that basis, it issued directions to the petitioner/OP on the lines summarised above.
IN appeal by the petitioner, the State Commission substantially upheld the findings and award of District Forum except to the extent of reducing the amount of compensation, as noticed.
WE have heard Mr. Thomas Joseph, learned counsel for the petitioner/OP and Mr. T.S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant and carefully perused the copies of documents that both parties had produced before the District Forum.
(i) We have to agree with Mr. JosePh that there has been a clear misaPPreciation by the District Forum of the documentary evidence Produced by the Parties before it. The District Forum has comPletely ignored the whole set of documents Produced by the Petitioner/OP, namely, invoice dated 21.06.1997 issued by V. S. T. Tillers Tractors Ltd. to the TAIC for four Power tillers for the sum of Rs.3,14,088/-, delivery note dated 21.06.1997 issued by the same V. S. T. Tillers Tractors Ltd. to the TAIC indicating the mode of disPatch of the Power tillers "by van" and Place of delivery as Madurai, coPy of the Printed guarantee card, receiPt dated 23.06.199 issued by TAIC in favour of V. S. T. Tillers Tractors Ltd. acknowledging the receiPt of the aforesaid four Power tillers, customer order (invoice no. 11653) dated 30.06.1997 issued by TAIC in the name of comPlainant showing the net Price of Rs.56,200/- Payable by the comPlainant for the Power tiller with engine no. A V 9 H -31992 and Chassis no. V 9 H - 62542 along with three accessories, viz., case wheel, tail wheel flat and wheel changer and delivery note no. 9428 dated 30.06.1997 issued by TAIC in favour of the comPlainant and signed by him in acknowledgement of receiPt of the aforesaid Power tiller along with other accessories. Thus, there was over- whelming documentary evidence before the District Forum to suPPort the contention of the Petitioner that the transaction of sale - Purchase of the Power tiller in question took Place between the TAIC and the comPlainant and the Petitioner/OP was nowhere in the Picture in that transaction. In the absence of any document Produced by the comPlainant before the District Forum to establish Payment of "consideration" for the Power tiller to the OP, he could not be termed a "consumer" under the Provisions of section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (ii) It is also surPrising that even the State Commission has failed comPletely to take into account all these documents which must have been staring at the face of the Bench.
IN conclusion, we allow the revision petition, set aside the orders of the Fora below and dismiss the complaint. We also direct the respondent/complainant to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner for dragging it in a totally unjustified and mischievous litigation. The cost shall be paid within four weeks from the date of this order, failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till realisation.