National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi

J M Malik, Presiding Member and Vinay Kumar, Member

Narinder Singh and Anr – Petitioners

Versus

J M Motors through its Partner and Anr – Respondents

Revision Petition No. 2061 of 2012                             Decided on 18.9.2012

(Against the order dated 15.11.2011 in Appeal No. 119 of 2005 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula) 

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 15,17, 19 and 21 - Tractor - Manufacturing defect - Supply of old Tractor in replacement of defective tractor - District Forum directed Respondents to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation, Rs. 20,000 taken at the time of replacement of tractor, compensation of Rs. 5,000 and cost of litigation of Rs. 2,000 - However, State Commission accepted appeal filed by Respondents and dismissed complaint - Replaced tractor was having two numbers on engine - Respondents admitted that two numbers were inadvertantly punched - State Commission rightly held except punching two numbers, its delivery proved that new tractor was supplied to Complainants having new engine. (Paras 6 to 8)

Important Point

Inadvertent punching of two numbers on engine does not mean that vehicle is old.

Order

J M Malik, Presiding Member – This revision petition has been filed by Narinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh, the Complainants. In nutshell, their case is as follows. 

2.The Complainants are agriculturists. They purchased a brand new tractor make Escorts from J M Motors, Respondent No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 3,60,000 in April 2002. Just after 15 days of purchase of the said tractor, it became defective. This fact was brought to the notice of both the Respondents - J M Motors, Respondent No. 1 and Escorts Ltd, Respondent No. 2. It also transpired that engine of the above mentioned tractor was beyond the scope of repairs. The Respondents, therefore, supplied another tractor to the Complainants on 1.5.2002. They also received a sum of Rs. 20,000 from the Complainants in lieu of the above said defective tractor. The Complainants were given registration, fitness certificate but the insurance cover note was not supplied.

3.After some time, the Complainants decided to sell the said tractor. It came to their knowledge that engine of said tractor bore two numbers i.e. one some old number and new punching was made by the Respondents, which was visible to the naked eye. It transpired that the Respondents had supplied the old tractor to the Petitioners in replacement of the defective tractor by putting colour on some old engine and then new engine number was punched on the  same due to which the prospective purchasers were offered to pay Rs. 50,000 less than the market value of the tractor. All these facts were brought to the notice of Respondents but they did nothing.

4. Ultimately, the Complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum, Sirsa wherein it was prayed that Respondents be directed to either replace the old tractor with new one or refund the price of the same and they should be further directed to return Rs. 20,000 and issue the insurance cover.

5.The Respondents admitted that there were two numbers punched on the engine of the replaced tractor and took the plea that the same was done inadvertently.

6.The District Forum accepted the complaint and directed the Respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation, Rs. 20,000 taken at the time of replacement of tractor, compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000 and cost of litigation in the sum of Rs. 2,000. The State Commission accepted the appeal filed by the Respondents and dismissed the complaint.

7.We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners. The only submission made by him was that this is an admitted fact that the replaced tractor was having two  numbers on the engine but the Respondents have failed to show that the double punching on the engine was done inadvertently. They have also failed to produce any evidence to show that the tractor was not old and new punching was made by mistake.

8.Learned counsel for the Petitioners admitted that the Complainants did not get the receipt for the sum of Rs. 20,000, which was paid in lieu of getting another tractor. In the absence of any written document, no reliance can be placed on the plea set up by the Complainant. Secondly, it is an admitted fact that said tractor bears two numbers but there is no iota of evidence which may go to reveal that old tractor was sold to the Complainants. The Complainants are lucky enough that their defective tractor was replaced immediately. It is difficult to fathom as to how mentioning of two numbers on the engine could go to affect the case. The Respondents have at the earliest possible stage admitted that due to inadvertence, two numbers were wrongly punched. Again, there is no evidence, worth the name, which may go to reveal that the market value of the tractor stood decreased by Rs. 50,000. No evidence in this regard was produced. The State Commission rightly held except the punching two numbers, its delivery proved that new tractor was supplied to the Complainants having new engine.

We see no ground to interfere with that finding.

The revision petition is without merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

 

 

 

Copyright © 2017 FADA India. All Rights Reserved.
Joomla! is Free Software released under the GNU General Public License.
Federation of Automobile Dealers Associations(FADA)
Website by Carazoo