PUNJAB TRACTORS LTD vs Vir Pratap

WE propose to dispose of the Revision Petition Nos. 943/96 and 1398/96 by this order as both the Revision Petitions arise from the same order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana dated 3rd September, 1996. The facts giving rise to these petitions are that the complainant had purchased a tractor from the opposite party on 23rd October, 1992. However, the tractor developed defects within the period of warranty as the right hand side rear differential tube and inner bearing of the tractor were broken. But, the same were replaced by the opposite party. The tractor had worked hardly for one month and it again developed major defects in the last week of July, 1993. On that occasion also, left hand side rear differential tube got damaged due to breakage of bearings besides the other parties of the rear axle. The opposite party failed to carry out repairs and the tractor had been parked at the workshop of the opposite party. The complainant approached the District Forum, Karnal with the prayer that the defective parts be got replaced and the respondents be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - for hire of another tractor and damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/ -.

OPPOSITE party contested the claim of the complainant on the ground that the alleged defects were not attributable to technical defect but due to failure of the bearings on the right hand side and rear differential tube which were replaced by them under supervision of the technical staff. Second complaint received in July, 1993 with respect to some defects were also not because of any technical defect but due to failure of the bearing and left hand side rear differential tube. It was urged that the complaint had been filed for undue gains. The tractor had been repaired in the presence of the representative of the complainant and there was no cause for the complainant to approach the District Forum. After considering the material placed by the parties on the record, the District Forum returned the finding that the tractor having been put into repairs in the presence of the representative of the complainant, the condition of warranty had been satisfied by them and thus there was no question of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint was dismissed.

BEING aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the complainant approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh. The State Commission after hearing the Counsel for the parties, observed that no satisfactory explanation was coming forth from the respondent as to why the bearings were getting damaged so frequently. The tractor was purchased on 23rd October, 1992 and bearing failed in November, 1992 and again in July, 1993. The mere replacement of the bearings was not enough and it was the duty of the respondent to have gone into the real causes of the failure of the bearings. However, since the Appellant had also not been able to produce any expert opinion on the subject, the District Forum was at disadvantage in coming to a conclusion on that point. It was further observed that there appeared to be some defect in the machine which had been leading to major break -down of the failure of the bearings and because of that the appellant could not make full use of the tractor. However, no order could be passed regarding the replacement of the left differential tube in the absence of any reliable evidence of a defect; but the least that the appellant deserved was to be compensated for the inconvenience suffered by him due to the frequent major break -down of the tractor as the failure of the bearings on two occasions in November, 1992 and July, 1993 was admitted by the respondents. The complainant was entitled to damages to the extent of Rs. 10,000/ - as claimed by him in his complaint. But there was no justification for award of damages due to harassment and inconvenience as the complaints of the Appellant were duly and promptly attended to.

THE opposite party has assailed the judgment of the State Commission by filing Revision Petition bearing No. 943 of 1996. The complainant has also filed Revision Petition bearing No. 1398 of 1996 for enhancement of the compensation. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties in both the Revision Petitions. Revision Petition No. 943/96. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State Commission had acted with material irregularity in awarding compensation despite view of the finding that the complaints of the complainant were duly and promptly attended to during the warranty period. Even otherwise no evidence was produced by the complainant to justify the claim of Rs. 10,000/ - alleged to have been spent for hiring another tractor. On the other hand Counsel for the complainant stressed that the State Commission acted with material irregularity in not awarding the entire compensation as claimed by the complainant. There was enough material to justify that the complainant itself had suffered a loss to the extent as claimed.

WE have perused the record with the help of the Counsel for the parties. In our opinion the State Commission acted with material irregularity in awarding a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - as compensation to the complainant after returning the finding that the complaints of the complainant were duly and promptly attended to. Even otherwise no reliable evidence was produced by the complainant in support of his case that he had spent Rs. 10,000/ - for hiring another tractor. However, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the justice will be met if the complainant is awarded a sum of Rs. 2,500/ - in all by way of compensation. In the result, we modify the order of the State Commission to the extent that the complainant would be entitled to an amount of Rs. 2500/ - by way of compensation. Revision Petition No. 1398 of 1996

IN view of the discussion above, we find no force in this Revision Petition and it is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs in both the revision petitions. Order modified in R.P. No. 943/96; R.P. No. 1398/96 dismissed.