Shiv Balak Singh vs MANAGER, ESCORTS TRACTOR LIMITED

THE complainant has filed this complaint for recovery of Rs. 3,93,400/- alongwith 18% per annum interest as price of the tractor and for replacement of existing tractor with a new one and damages.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant is a farmer and in order to purchase a tractor he approached the opposite parties 2 and 3, M/s. B.R. Auto Sales Private Limited and Uttar Pradesh Rajya Sahakari Krishi Evam Gram Vikas Bank Limited who were willing to provide loan for purchase of a tractor. A sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was sanctioned as loan for purchase of a tractor. THE complainant approached opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, M/s. Escort Tractors Limited and M/s. B.R. Auto Sales Private Limited, a dealer of Escorts Limited, respectively. THE complainant purchased a tractor for Rs. 2,17,000/- on 20.11.1991, the details of which are given in para 2 of the complaint. This tractor went out of order on 3.12.1991 and the complainant approached M/s. Vikram Tractors, Naka Paisar, Faizabad Road, District Barabanki who is the authorised sales and service agent of Escorts. He charged a sum of Rs. 693/- and repaired the defect. Copy of bill issued by him as Annexure 1 to the complaint. This tractor again developed some defects on 7.4.1992 and the complainants approached the same dealer who after charging Rs. 713/- repaired the same. A copy of this bill issued by him is Annexure 2 to the complaint. THEreafter again the tractor developed defects on 13.7.1992 and the tractor was handed over to the same dealer in his workshop on that date. Since that date the tractor is lying in his workshop. THE complainant sent a registered letter on 20.7.1992 complaining about the defects and making a request that another tractor be given to him as the tractor is developing defects since the very beginning. No action has been taken on this application. THEreafter a legal notice was given on 30.7.1992 but no effect. Copies of these letters are Annexures 4 and 5. It is further alleged that the complainant could not harvest his Rabi and Kharif crops resulting into loss of Rs. 1,75,000/-. The complainant has also spent a sum of Rs. 1,406/- in repairing the tractor. He has claimed these amounts alongwith interest and damages.

Notices were sent to all the opposite parties in April, 1993 by registered post which were not received back unserved. Similarly notices were sent again in September, 1994 to all the opposite parties by registered post which were also not received back unserved. In response to the above notice, opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 filed written statements mentioning therein that the loan was taken from them and the tractor was purchased by the complainant whose delivery was given to him. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 7,500/- as first instalment on 1.10.1992 and Rs. 15,000/- on another date. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on 25.5.1993. Thereafter no amount has been deposited by the complainant.

OPPOSITE party Nos. 1 and 2 have not filed any written statement inspite of service of notice which is deemed to be sufficient. Hence suit proceeded ex parte against them. The complainant filed evidence on affidavit in support of his contention.

ON the date of hearing none of the parties were present. Hence the case was reserved for judgment. We have perused the entire evidence on record and find that the complainant purchased a tractor for Rs. 2,17,000/- on 20.11.1991. Soon after the purchase, the tractor developed defects on two times within short intervals. The complainant had to pay a sum of Rs. 1,406/- on repair of the tractor. Copies of both the bills have been filed which are also proved. Thus we find that the tractor did not give satisfactory service at all during the short time of its purchase. Therefore, the tractor was handed over to the service station of the authorised dealer of the manufacturer, opposite party No. 1, Escort Tractors Ltd. Since then the tractor has not been returned after repairs. Even after service of legal notice the grievance of the complainant has not been set right. Therefore, when the tractor had developed defects soon after purchase, there was some defects which could not be rectified by the service station; otherwise the tractor would have been repaired and returned to the complainant. Thus in view of the above findings, the tractor could not be utilised by the complainant for the purpose for which he purchased it. The tractor was purchased in the year 1992. Hence it cannot be repaired now and no useful purpose would be served for returning of the same after its purchase. It must have lost its utility during last seven years since it is standing in the service station of M/s. Vikram Tractors, Barabanki. The manufacturer and the dealer are liable to refund the price of the tractor amounting to Rs. 2,17,000/- alongwith 18% per annum interest or to replace the tractor by a new tractor. Both these options are open to opposite party Nos. 1 and 2.

AS far as the damages are concerned, the amount spent by the complainant on repair of the tractor have to be paid back by opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. The rest of the amount which has been claimed as compensation due to loss in the crop and for accumulation of interest of the loan amount, the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to pay the same. The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- as damages till the filing of the complaint. Now 7 years have been lapsed since the filing of the complaint and since then the complainant has been deprived of utilising the tractor for agricultural purposes for which the same was purchased by him. Therefore, the amount of compensation claimed by him cannot be said to be on the higher side. AS a period of 7 years has lapsed, the complainant is entitled to get interest from the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 on the amount of compensation and the repairing charges at the rate of 18% per annum which has already been allowed on the price of tractor from expiry of two months from the date of judgment.

THUS the complaint is liable to be allowed and the complainant is entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 2,17,000/- alongwith 18% per annum interest to be paid from 1.1.1993 till the date of payment. On the rest amount of compensation and repair charges, the interest at the rate of 18% per annum shall be paid from the expiry of two months from the date of judgment if the amount is not paid within two months. Order The complaint is allowed and the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,17,000/- alongwith 18% per annum interest from 1.1.1993 till the date of payment. He is also directed to pay Rs. 1,76,400/- as compensation and repairing charges alongwith interest at the rate of 18% which shall be payable from the expiry of two months from the date of judgment if the amount is not paid within that period.

Let the compliance of this order be made within two months from the date of this order.

LET copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Complaint allowed.