Punjab Tractors Ltd. vs P.Sanghasena

REVISION Petition Nos.181/2007 and 182/2007 have been filed by the Punjab Tractors Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Appeal Nos.839/2006 and 840/2006 in favour of P.Sanghasena and Madamma, respectively (hereinafter referred to as the Respondents), who were the original complainants before the District Forum in two different complaints.

SINCE, the complaints are more or less similar in both cases, the revision petitions will be discussed and disposed of by a common order. The facts of the case are that Respondents had paid Rs.6,38,000/- and Rs.6,07,256/- , respectively, through demand drafts to Sapthagiri Tractors (Respondent Nos.2 & 3), authorized Tractor dealers for purchasing Tractors manufactured by the Petitioner. A Tractor was delivered to Respondent, P.Sanghasena who on verifying the documents noted that the Chassis number engraved in the Tractor and the number mentioned in the documents were different and further the Tractor appeared to have been re-painted with worn-out tyres and used spare parts. In respect of the Tractor purchased by Respondent, Madamma, documents pertaining to sale certificate, registration certificate, insurance etc.were not delivered to the Respondent though she was kept assured by the Respondents/dealers that the same would be delivered shortly. As a result of this, the Tractors could not be put to use causing losses to the above Respondents who were agriculturists. Respondents, therefore, filed complaints before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service against the Petitioner/manufacturer company and the Respondents/dealers. Respondent, P.Sanghasena, sought return of his demand draft of Rs.6,38,000/- along with compensation of Rs.1500/- per day as well as Rs.20,000/- on account of other expenses which included payment of interest on the loan borrowed from the Bank. Respondent, Madamma while seeking return of her demand draft of Rs.6,07,256/- sought compensation of Rs.1000/- per day from the date of delivery with interest @ 18% and any other reliefs as the District Forum may deem fit. Petitioner/manufacturer submitted before the District Forum that as manufacturer of the Tractors they do not sell them to individual customers but directly to dealers and, therefore, there is no privity of contract between the Petitioner and the above two Respondents. It was the responsibility of the dealers who sold the Tractors to the Respondents to also deliver correct/timely documents to them. Respondents/dealers accepted that there was a difference in the chassis number and stated that this was a bonafide typographical mistake and was not intentional. Both the dealers as well as the Petitioner denied that the Tractors had any major defects or were old Tractors. The District Forum in order to verify whether there was any manufacturing defects or whether the tractors sold to the Respondents were old tractors, appointed the R.T.O. as Commissioner who after inspecting the vehicles certified that there were no manufacturing defects in the tractors and the vehicles appeared to be new and in good condition. The only minor defect detected was a hold measuring 1 mm on the flying wheel cover which could have been caused because the tractor was lying unused for several months. The Commissioner, however, confirmed that there were difference in the chassis number on the tractor and the number reflected in the documents given to Respondent, P.Sanghasena. The District Forum after considering the evidence on record agreed that there were no manufacturing or major defects in the vehicles and that there was only one minor defect as pointed out by the Commissioner. However, it held both the Petitioner/manufacturer as well as the dealers guilty of deficiency in service in respect of both cases. It, therefore, directed the Petitioner/manufacturer as well as Respondents/dealers to partly, jointly and severally rectify the defects in the documents and compensate the Respondents by paying P.Sanghasena 10.75% interest per annum on Rs.6,38,000/- from 21.05.2005 till the date of rectification of chassis numbers/documents and 10.75% per annum on Rs.6,07,256/- to Madamma from 06.02.2005 till the date of delivery of documents. It further directed the parties to jointly and severally pay Rs.500/- per day to the Respondents for making good the loss caused because of their inability to use the tractors from 21.05.2005 and 06.02.2005 respectively. Rs.1,000/- was awarded as compensation and Rs.500/- as litigation costs.

Aggrieved by the order, Petitioner/manufacturer and Respondents/dealers filed appeals before the State Commission. The Respondents/dealers submitted before the State Commission that they would have no objection if their appeals are dismissed provided the damages awarded at Rs.500/- per day by the District Forum are reduced to Rs.200/- per day. They also submitted that even though the Tractors were sold by the Petitioner/manufacturer to the Respondents/dealers, because Form F and Form No.22 bore the signatures of the Petitioners authorized signatories, it will also be liable for the mistakes committed in the recording of the wrong chassis number in the documents. The State Commission after considering the evidence on record reduced the compensation from Rs.500/- to Rs.200/- per day on the grounds that the Respondents/complainant would not be using the tractors for all 365 days and therefore, a lesser amount would meet the ends of justice. It, therefore, upheld the order of the District Forum order in respect of the remaining amount and held the Petitioner/manufacturer as well as Respondents/dealers to jointly and severally pay this amount to the two Respondents.

THE order of the State Commission has been accepted by the Respondents/dealers but challenged by the Petitioner/manufacturer in the present revision petition. Mr.Atishi Dipankar & Mr.Prachetha Singh, Advocate represented the Petitioner. Mr.C.B.Gururaj, Advocate represented Respondents, P.Sanghasena and Madamma in both cases. Mr.Nikhil A.Menon, Advocate represented Respondents/dealers in both cases.

COUNSEL for Petitioner/manufacturer contended that the District Forum as well as State Commission had reached a clear conclusion that the tractor manufactured by them was in good condition and was a new one. Learned counsel for Respondents/dealers confirmed that they have not come in the revision and accepted the orders of the State Commission reducing the quantum of compensation. However, they contended that the State Commission had rightly directed that the compensation which included both the interest as well as Rs.200/- per day would have to be paid jointly and severally by both the Petitioner/manufacturer and Respondents/dealers because it was clear from the orders of the District Forum that in Form F where the wrong chassis number was mentioned, there are signatures of the Petitioner/manufacturer company and in fact these documents were despatched by the Petitioner/manufacturer. Learned counsel for Petitioner disputed this contention and stated that delivery of correct documents as well as timely delivery of these documents was the sole responsibility of the Respondents/dealers who sold the tractors to the two Respondents. The conclusion of the District Forum that because Forum F bore the signatures of the Petitioners and, therefore, they were liable for the discrepancies in the documents is not a correct interpretation because the purpose of the signatures on these forms is merely to certify that the Petitioner/ manufacturer had manufactured these tractors as per the prescribed specifications and to enable the Motor Vehicles Department to certify and classify the same as an agricultural farm equipment product. Even if any typographical error was there, it was the responsibility of the Respondents/dealers who sold the tractors to carefully check these documents before registration. These documents are also re-verified by the R.T.O. and if there was any mistake by the Petitioner/manufacturer, it would have been asked to rectify it. The District Forum without appreciating these facts has, therefore, reached an erroneous conclusion by foisting this liability on the Petitioners along with the Respondents/dealers. COUNSEL for Petitioner reiterated that there was no privity of contract between the Petitioner and the two Respondents/complainants since it has not sold the vehicles to them. We have heard the learned counsel for all parties and have gone through the evidence on record. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner/manufacturer did not sell the tractors to the two Respondents in the two cases and these were sold to them by the Respondents/dealers. Thus, it is correct that there was no privity of contract between the Petitioner/manufacturer and the two Respondents and consequently it was the responsibility of the Respondents/dealers to ensure that they gave correct and timely delivery of the documents to the customers to whom they had sold the tractors. Petitioner does not come in the picture in this transaction as a manufacturer. It has also been upheld by the learned fora below that there was no manufacturing defects or any major technical defect in the tractors manufactured by the Petitioner.

KEEPING in view these facts we agree that the learned fora below erred in not appreciating the above facts and holding the Petitioner/manufacturer also guilty of deficiency in service along with the Respondents/dealers.

WE, therefore, set aside the order of the State Commission in respect of the Petitioner/manufacturer. Order of State Commission against dealer / respondent no. 2 stands and complainant would be at liberty to execute the order against dealer / respondent no. 2. The revision petition is allowed with no order as to costs.