RAMESH S.PATIL vs AJAY AGRO AGENCIES

THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the State Commission Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal with some modifications.

THE facts in brief which led the complainant to approach the District Forum are as under. The complainant in this case purchased a H.M.T. tractor from the opposite parties, which, from the beginning started giving troubles. Dissatisfied with the response of the opposite parties in keeping the tractor trouble free and roadworthy, the complainant approached the District Forum, which by its order awarded Rs. 4,880/- against both the respondents for the expenses incurred by the complainant on account of repairs; a sum of Rs. 12,500/- for the loss caused due to keeping it idle at the workshop; Rs.20,000/- compensation for default in service; Rs. 15,000/- for mental tension, and Rs. 1,000/- for expenses incurred by the complainant before the District Forum in pursuing his case.

Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, both the parties went to the State Commission in appeal. The State Commission in its well reasoned order held that the dealer cannot be held liable for the loss caused to the complainant on account of repairs and absolved him from the liability cast against him. The State Commission also upheld the direction of the District Forum so far as award of compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for mental tension. The State Commission, while adverting to the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital & Ors., reported as III (2000) CPJ 1 (SC)=VI (2000) SLT 267=(2000) 7 SCC 688, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed that the Consumer Fora established and functioning under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, have to resolve the claims brought before them under consumer disputes by applying well recognised and settled principle of law, disallowed Rs. 12,500/- awarded to the complainant on account of the loss caused due to keeping the tractor idle in the workshop and Rs. 20,000/- as awarded by the District Forum on account of compensation for the default in service. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the State Commission enhanced the amount of costs from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. As far as the award of Rs. 4,880/- which amountwas spent by the complainant on account of repairs, the State Commission observed that the complainant could prove on record that the amount spent on repairs only to the extent of Rs. 1,106/- and not for the total amount of Rs. 4,880/-and hence the State Commission allowed on this count only to the extent of Rs. 1,106/- and disallowed the rest of the amount awarded by the District Forum on this account. Interest on the aforesaid amounts was awarded at 15% and disposed of both the appeals in the above terms. Feeling still not satisfied with the order of the State Commission the complainant has come in appeal before us for enhancement of the amounts. The petitioner was not present either in person or through any Counsel or authorised representative when the matter was taken up for hearing. We have gone through the orders of the State Commission and the District Forum. The State Commission while disposing of the appeals gave cogent, convincing and detailed reasons in support of its decision. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the State Commission in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and dismiss this revision petition. Revision Petition dismissed.