Punjab Tractors Ltd. vs HAMAM SINGH

THE above mentioned two appeals arise out of one and the same order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh dated 25.8.1998 in Appeal No. 1037 of 1998 dismissing appeal filed by the Supreme Tractors Corporation and Punjab Tractors Ltd. By the said appeal, the order of the District Forum Faridkot dated 21.9.1997 was challenged whereunder the Supreme Tractors and Punjab Tractors were directed to pay 50% of Rs. 2,62,500/-, the price of the tractor along with interest thereon @ 18% from 29th August, 1997 with cost of Rs. 1,500/-.

THE complainant, Hamam Singh purchased a tractor on 27.11.1996 with one-year warranty. He had taken loan from P.A.D.B. Branch at Faridkot and he had sold some shares for purchasing the tractor. Immediately after the purchase of the tractor, it started giving trouble inasmuch as two Pistons Assy, Liner Assy, Main Oil seal and Leveling rod and Shaft had to be replaced. THE complainant sought compensation amounting to Rs. 200 lakhs. The opposite parties, Supreme Tractors Corporation claimed that the tractor was delivered on 20.10.1996 and upto 1.8.1997, it had been used for 940 hours. The defect in the tractor was removed and the complainant and his son were fully satisfied.

The Punjab Tractors, the manufacturer of the tractor contested the matter on the grounds which were taken by the Supreme Tractors Corporation. The sale was guaranteed by one-year warranty for parts against manufacturing defects subject to certain terms and conditions as contained in Swaraj Operations Manual (Annexure R2/1). The complainant availed the services of warranty. Necessary parts were replaced after rendering free service and job done on 9 occasions from 27.11.1996 to 1.8.1997.

LEARNED Counsel for the Punjab tractors submitted that there was no manufacturing detect as it was evident that the tractor had plied for 940 hours during first nine months itself. If the tractor was defective it could not have been used for such a long period. The fact that the vehicle was sold, was not disclosed earlier would indicate mala fide on the part of the complainant/petitioner when he filed the appeal. The vehicle was used for commercial purposes. The complainant was not consumer and he was not entitled to any relief after the expiry of the warranty. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

INSOFAR as the point as to whether Hamam Singh was a consumer or not and the submission that the tractor used for commercial purposes would be covered by the explanation added to the definition of the term ''consumer'' and the complainant could not be excluded from the definition of ''consumer''. One has to consider distinction between the different terms, commercial, industrial, agricultural, etc. which are being simultaneously used in various enactments. Since it is not meant for re-sale, it could not be said to be a commercial purpose. Tractor would be used for agriculture purpose. Consequently, the contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the manufacturer and the dealer in this regard cannot be accepted. Insofar as the question of manufacturing defect is concerned, there is no dispute that on 9.12.1996, the Piston assembly was replaced. Again on 10.l.1997, Liner assembly was replaced. On 24.4.1997, again of Piston and Liner assembly was required to be replaced. On 7th May, 1997 sealing ring was replaced and again on 1.8.1997. Main Oil Seal and Levelling Rod had to be replaced, even if one ignore replacement of Oil seals on 14th February, 1997 to 24th February, 1997. Since out of three Pistons, two were required to be replaced along with Liner assembly and Cam Shaft, it would clearly indicate that there was manufacturing defect in the tractor. One could not be oblivious to the submission that these defects were noticed within a very short time span of 10 months from the date of purchase forcing the dealer/manufacturer to replace them. Even if we ignore the changing of oil seals and diesel filter, other repairs and replacement required to be undertaken by the dealer and consider undisputed jobs done the manufacturing defects would become too obvious. A tractor is supposed to give reasonable service for a number of years exceeding 5 to 7 years without forcing a purchaser to visit workshop of the respondents to complain about the aforesaid defects again and again. As regards affidavit filed by the purchaser of the tractor from the complainant, he has no doubt stated that he had not suffered any problem afterwards, but it would not make any difference in view of the admitted situation about the replacement of the above mentioned parts of the tractor namely, two Pistons, two Liner Assy., Sealing Ring and Cam Shaft. There are certain defects, which have been allegedly found as mentioned earlier and there is other corroborative evidence of the complainant, which would support that there was manufacturing defect.

SUPPOSING for the sake of arguments no defect was found by the subsequent purchaser, it would mean that the complainant had maintained it well after the warranty period and before the sale i.e. one day before the appeal was filed on 15.10.1998. One could not be oblivious to the submissions that in revision petition this Commission is supposed to be very slow in disturbing the finding of facts.

AS regards the submission that the complainant had already got half of the price by selling the tractor it would neither help the dealer nor the manufacturer the reason being that the complainant had to sell the vehicle for he had to undisputedly waste time, money energy in getting the tractor repaired repeatedly and could not have the satisfaction of using new tractor. He might have earned much more by running a tractor by using it if was not defective and could be used for more period. It was sold after two years. The complainant did not get any compensation for the loss of use for hundreds of lost working hours. He had to pay interest to the bank. In these circumstances, if the State Commission instead of replacement ordered to pay 50% of the amount after considering the sale of the tractor on 15.10.1998, we do not think that insofar as the amount of refund of 50% of the value is concerned, any interference is called for. It was submitted that the interest was on higher side. But, there was no dispute that the complainant had taken the loan from P.A.D.B. branch at Faridkot for Rs. 2,30,000/- and he had to sell his shares as is mentioned in para 5 of the complaint. Neither the Supreme Tractors, Faridkot nor by the opposite party (Punjab Tractors Ltd.) disputed the fact of taking advance of Rs. 2,62,500/-. If we consider the loss of business the requisite interest paid all around 14-15% payable to the financial institutions, the amount of interest awarded does not call for any interference.

Coming to the second limb of the argument, in ordinary course, during two years, the tractor would have depreciated in value at least to the extent of 20% one has to keep in view the fact that there is evidence of its use for 940 hours in first nine months. We are also supposed to take into consideration the Pistons and the assemblies. Various defects were repaired by the petitioners. In these circumstances, while we would not disturb the ratio of the loss suffered to the extent of 50%, we would like to reduce the amount of Rs. 1,31,250/- by taking into consideration the depreciated value to the extent of 20% from the original value of Rs. 2,62,500/-. The contention that the petitioner had already received a sum of Rs. 1,56,000/- by selling the tractor on 15.10.1998 would not make any difference. It would be totally different kind of transaction depending on price of a new tractor of the same brand market forces of supply and demand and condition of the tractor. The petitioners have nothing to do with it. We would accordingly reduce Rs. 53,500/- by way of depreciation, take its value at Rs. 2,09,000/- and award 50% of Rs. 2,09,000/- i.e. a sum of Rs. 1,04,500/- interest @ 18% p.a. with cost of Rs. 1,500/- in all.

BOTH the petitioners i.e. Punjab Tractors Ltd. and Supreme Tractors Corporation being jointly and severally liable in terms of judgment in Jose Philip v. Premier Automobiles Ltd. I (2004) CPJ 9 (SC)=I (2004) SLT 855. They are accordingly directed to pay the above mentioned amount within a period of six weeks. BOTH the revision petitions stand disposed of as mentioned here in above. R.Ps. disposed of.