Raza Tractors vs Platan Ram Sahu

THE present revision petition has been filed by the Manager, Raza Tractors (hereinafter referred to as the ''Petitioner'') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the ''State Commission'') in Appeal No. 02/2007 in favour of Platan Ram Sahu (hereinafter referred to as the ''Respondent'').

THE facts of the case according to the Respondent who was the original complainant before the District Forum are that he had purchased a Tractor from the Petitioner for a total amount of Rs. 3,58,500 which he paid by a demand draft drawn on Dena Bank against the price of Tractor and related items and accessories. However, the Petitioner did not supply three items as promised namely; Cage Wheel, Seed Drill (Double Tiners) and Leveller and gave an assurance that these would be provide within 10 days. Although the Respondent contacted the Petitioner on several occasions to provide the three items for which he had paid Rs. 58,500, Petitioner kept avoiding him on one pretext or the other and did not supply the items. Since, the Respondent was paying interest on the loan amount in respect of the above three items without getting the benefit of being able to use them, he sent a complaint in writing to the Petitioner but despite the written complaint Petitioner did not supply the remaining three items. Respondent thereafter sent a legal notice which Petitioner refused to accept. Respondent, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that the Petitioner be directed to supply him the remaining three items, Rs. 25,000 as compensation, interest on the amount of the three items costing Rs. 58,500, Rs. 500 as cost of legal notice sent and Rs. 5,000 for mental and financial hardships suffered by the Respondent.

PETITIONER denied the above contentions and stated that the Tractor along with all the agricultural tools [including the Cage Wheel, Seed Drill (Double Tiners) and Leveller mentioned as not being delivered by the Respondent] shown in the Bill dated 13.1.2006, were received by the Respondent and he had signed the bill in acknowledgement of the receipt of these items. Further, Respondent had also given a Satisfaction Certificate dated 13.1.2006 to the Manager, Dena Bank saying that he was fully satisfied with the Tractor, trolley, agricultural tools and all other accessories which were received in working and good condition against Bill No. 50 dated 13.1.2006. Apart from this, it is also a fact and not denied by the Respondent that he had brought his Tractor for service to the free checking camp of the Petitioner and had not lodged any complaint about any problem after having used it for about two months. Petitioner also denied that it had refused to receive any notice and stated that in fact no such notice was sent by the Respondent.

THE District Forum after hearing both parties, dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Respondent had failed to produce any reliable, reasonable and admissible evidence to prove that he had not received the three items as contended, from the Petitioner, District Forum relied on the Satisfaction Certificate dated 13.1.2006 produced by the Petitioner which had been signed by the Respondent.

AGGRIEVED by this, Respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission which allowed the appeal on the ground that the Satisfaction Certificate relied upon by the District Forum did not specify as to which items and tools were provided in respect of the various agricultural items and accessories. In the absence of this, State Commission concluded that the Satisfaction Certificate was only in respect of the items supplied and cannot be conclusive evidence that the three specific items reported to have not been delivered were also supplied and functioned satisfactorily. The State Commission also drew adverse inference from the fact that the Petitioner refused to accept the legal notice sent to him by the Respondent through registered post prior to filing of the complaint before the District Forum. The State Commission while setting aside the orders of the District Forum directed the Petitioner to pay the Respondent Rs. 58,500 as cost of the three items not supplied along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 13.1.2006, Rs. 3,000 as cost to be paid within two months failing which Petitioner shall be liable pay interest @ 12% per annum. Hence, the present revision petition.

COUNSEL for both parties made oral submissions. Counsel for Petitioner stated that there was credible documentary evidence on record that the Petitioner had supplied, apart from the Tractor, all the other items for which the Respondent had paid an amount of Rs. 3,58,500. In this connection, she brought to our attention the bill of the Petitioner/Company dated 13.1.2006 which had been filed before the District Forum clearly stating the items which had been purchased, the price for each item and which included the cost of the Tractor which was Rs. 2,93,500, and 5 other items including Cage Wheel for Rs. 8,500, Seed Drill (Double Tiners) for Rs. 23,500, and Leveller for Rs. 10,500. The Respondent had signed on this bill acknowledging receipt of all the above items which totalled to Rs. 3,58,500 after a discount of Rs. 5,000. This was further fortified by the Satisfaction Certificate dated 13.1.2006 given by the Respondent to the Dena Bank clearly stating that he had been supplied all the items for which he had made the payment of Rs. 3,58,500 against Bill No. 50 dated 13.1.2006 and that he was fully satisfied. A perusal of the above Bill as stated earlier includes the three items which the Respondent now says have not been delivered. It is also on record that Respondent had been using the Tractor for some weeks. There was no evidence filed by the Respondent to counter any of the above facts. The State Commission by not taking into account the above credible and acceptable evidence erred in allowing the appeal of the Respondent.

COUNSEL for Respondent on the other hand stated that Respondent had signed on the bill (dated 13.1.2006) in good faith on the assurance given to him by the Petitioner that three items will be supplied to him within 10 days. As soon as he realized that these were not being supplied, he had immediately contacted the Petitioner and on not receiving any response from him several times, he had no option but to file a complaint before the District Forum. Counsel for Respondent stated that the State Commission had rightly concluded that the Satisfaction Certificate could not be relied upon because it does not mention the three specific agricultural tools which had not been supplied to him and rightly ruled in his favour. In fact because these items were not supplied, the Tractor had become useless and, therefore, the request for compensation.

WE have heard learned Counsel for both parties at length and have gone through the evidence on record. While it is a fact that the Satisfaction Certificate does not specify the various items pertaining to the Tractor with which the Respondent was purportedly fully satisfied, it is also a fact that these were listed out in the bill of the Petitioner/Company and a reference to this bill has been made in the Satisfaction Certificate wherein the Respondent has certified that the Tractor and all the tools and accessories were received in good and working condition. Therefore, the Bill read together with the Satisfaction Certificate makes it amply clear that the Petitioner had supplied all the items which were stated in the Bill. To a specific query by us to Counsel for Respondent whether he had any evidence in view of the Bill dated 13.1.2006 to state that the three items were not provided, Counsel for Respondent was unable to give any explanation except to say that there was no tick-mark against two of the three items in the bill. This, in our view, is of no consequence in the instant case since items provided have been clearly listed out and in acknowledgement the Respondent''s signature are also there. We are, thus, unable to accept the Respondent''s case that the Petitioner committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by not supplying three of the items for which the Respondent had paid. We are of the view that the State Commission erred in not taking into account all the above facts which were in evidence before it while reaching its conclusion. We, therefore, have no option but to set aside the order of the State Commission and accept the revision petition with no order as to costs. Revision Petition allowed.