RAJESH KUMAR vs Chandresh Rathode

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 22.12.2003 in Complaint No. 01/2001 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'' for short) directing the respondents to pay to the complainant/appellant compensation of Rs. 10,000.

INDISPUTABLY the complainant/appellant purchased Sonalica Tractor from respondent No. 1, manufactured by respondent No. 2. It was alleged by the complainant that there were defects in the tractor as a result of which it started giving trouble. He approached the dealer -respondent No. 1 for repairs thereof, but they have not taken due care and took unreasonably long time in its repairs, resulting in detention of the tractor for a period of about 10 months as detailed in complaint as also in the impugned order. He prayed in the complaint that compensation of Rs. 4,20,000 be awarded as against the respondents. The complaint was resisted by the respondents.

THE District Forum in the impugned order held that respondent No. 1 was guilty of deficiency in service inasmuch as it unnecessarily detained the tractor from 14.2.2000 to 1.11.2000 and, therefore, the complainant was deprived of the use of the tractor for the above period. Accordingly compensation of Rs. 10,000 was awarded.

LEARNED Counsel for the parties were heard. Record of the District Forum as well as the impugned order perused. The only grievance of the complainant/appellant is that award of Rs. 10,000 as compensation is inadequate and he has prayed that the same be increased. Prayer as above has been strenuously opposed by the learned Counsel for respondents.

WE have considered the material on record. Perusal of the impugned order shows that appellants tractor was detained by respondent No. 1 allegedly on the ground of default in payment of loan amount. The detention as above was found to be unjustified. District Forum has observed that the complainant has not produced any material to substantiate its claim for compensation. However, considering that the tractor was purchased for about Rs. 3,00,000 and considering the fact that it was detained for a considerable period of 10 months, it must have resulted in loss to the complainant/appellant. Therefore, compensation of Rs. 10,000 awarded by District Forum in our opinion, appears to be on the lower side, and it deserves to be increased to Rs. 50,000.

ACCORDINGLY the appeal is allowed. Impugned order is modified and instead of payment of Rs. 10,000 as compensation as directed by the District Forum, it is directed that the respondent shall pay to the complainant compensation of Rs. 50,000 (fifty thousand) with interest @ % per annum payable from the date of complaint. Appeal allowed.