National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi

V B Gupta, Presiding Member and Rekha Gupta, Member

Arjun Singh - Petitioner

Versus

Paras Traders thorugh its proprietor Mangi Lal Jain & Anr – Respondents

Revision Petition No. 4974 of 2008                                                    Decided on 24.10.2013

(From the order dated 22.10.2008 in Appeal Nos. 679 & 641 of 2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan)

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 15,17,19 and 21- Automobile – Manufacturing Defect – Complaint dismissed by State Commission in appeal – Mechanic has nowhere stated as to on what basis he reached the conclusion that Tractor engine had been seized due to duplicate oil - There is nothing on record to show that above mechanic got engine oil analyzed from any laboratory - Merely on writing of mechanic no findings can be given that engine oil can was a duplicate oil - Entire case of Petitioner is based on conjuncture and surmises - There is nothing on record to show that engine oil sold by Respondent was duplicate oil and due to which engine of Petitioner's tractor got seized - Petitioner has miserably failed to establish any deficiency against Respondent - Revision Petition dismissed.                                                                                    (Paras 20 to 24) 

Important Point

Merely on writing of a mechanic, no findings can be given that engine oil can was a duplicate oil.

Order

V B Gupta, Presiding Member - Being aggrieved by order dated 22.10.2008, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Jaipur (for short, 'State Commission'), Petitioner/Complainant has filed this revision petition.

2.Petitioner filed a complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sawaimadhopur (for short, 'District Forum') on the allegations that in the year 1997 he had purchased one Mahindra Tractor from its authorized dealer for agricultural purposes and for earning livelihood. In the month of November, 1997 to get the engine oil changed, Petitioner purchased one can of 5-litre. and one can of 1-litre CRB Tiscus Engine Oil and one oil filter, the product of Respondent No. 2/OP No. 2 from Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1 on 29.11.1997, being authorized dealer of Respondent No. 2, for which a bill was issued by Respondent No. 1. However, in the bill, Respondent No. 1 has mentioned only 5-litre engine oil but did not mention regarding oil filter and can of 1-litre. 

3.On the very next date, Petitioner poured the said engine oil in the engine of his tractor but just after about one hour, engine of the tractor got heated and it got seized. Petitioner called the mechanic who after checking told him that due to use of duplicate engine oil, engine has seized and it had been caused due to inferior quality of oil. Petitioner immediately contacted Respondent No. 1 but no action was taken by him. It is alleged that Respondent No. 1 is not authorized dealer of Respondent No. 2. Due to supply of inferior quality of the engine oil, Petitioner had to incur a sum of Rs.50,000 on its tractor and till date, the tractor has been parked at the shop of Respondent No. 1 and Petitioner has not been able to use the same. Accordingly, Petitioner has prayed that Respondents be directed to pay Rs.1 lakh as compensation.

4.Respondent No. 1 in its reply has stated that Petitioner purchased only 5 lt can of engine oil for which bill was issued and the same was manufactured by Respondent No. 2. Rest of the allegations has been denied by Respondent No. 1.

5.Respondent No. 2 in its written statement took the plea that without laboratory test/analysis of the container of the engine oil and wrapper fixed on it, it is not in a position to state that whether the container of the oil is of Respondent No. 2 or not. Respondent No. 2 can only take the responsibility of sealed engine oil. It is also stated that Petitioner did not get the tractor checked from the authorized dealer or company’s mechanic. Therefore complaint merits dismissal.

6.District Forum vide order dated 10.12.1998, dismissed the complaint.

7.Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, Petitioner filed Appeal No.82 of 1999 before the State Commission.

8.The State Commission, vide order dated 25.2.2002, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of District Forum and remanded the matter back to the District Forum for disposal of the complaint afresh.

9.Thereafter, District Forum, vide order dated 25.9.2002 referred the matter to the State Commission for necessary guidance/directions in the light of fact that container of the disputed oil was not available with it.

10.The State Commission sent the file back to the District Forum, with following comments;

“Seen. D F is directed to decide the complaint as per rules. The Commission is not to review or revive final Order in the manner stated by the DF”.

11.Thereafter, District Forum by majority judgment dated 20.3.2004 held that Respondent No. 1 had indulged in unfair trade practice, as it was not authorized to sell engine oil and directed Respondent No. 1 to the Petitioner a compensation of Rs. 1,94,000.

12.Respondent No. 1 preferred Appeal No. 806 of 2004 against order dated 20.3.2004 of the District Forum.

13.State Commission, vide order dated 19.4.2004, allowed the same and remanded back the matter to District Forum.

14.Thereafter, District Forum, vide order dated 21.3.2006, allowed the complaint and directed Respondent No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the Petitioner towards expenses incurred for repair of the tractor and to pay further sum of Rs. 7,000 as compensation.

15.Order dated 21.3.2006 of the District Forum was challenged by the Respondent No. 1 by way of filing Appeal No. 641 of 2006 before the State Commission. Petitioner had also filed Cross Appeal No. 679 of 2006.

16.State Commission, vide impugned order dated 22.10.2008 allowed the appeal of Respondent No. 1 and dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner.

17.Hence, the present revision petition.

18.Petitioner in support of its case has placed on record written submissions. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the written submissions also.

19.Case of the Petitioner is that Respondent No. 1 has supplied 1-litre engine oil, which was spurious in nature and as such engine of his tractor got seized and damage was caused to the same.

20.It is the case of Petitioner that bill for 5-litre can of engine oil was given but no bill for one lt can was given. It does not appeal to the common sense that when Petitioner had purchased three items from Respondent No. 1 and for one major item, cash-memo has been issued, then why for other two small items, Respondent No. 1 would not issue the cash-memo. In the absence of bill for 1 lt can of engine oil, story put forward by the Petitioner does not inspire any confidence.

21.Now coming to the report of mechanic on which much reliance has been placed by the Petitioner's counsel which states:

“Today on 2.12.1997 I have checked the Tractor Mahendra B2 75 belonging to Arjun Singh Ji Rajput S/o Shri Prahlad Singh, Resident of Village Rungti Police Station, Bonli. After checking I have found that due to duplicate oil and duplicate oil filter the Tractor engine is seized and there is a noise in the crank.

                                 Sd/-

Rasid, Mahendra Tractor Work Shop, Bonli,

District SawaiMadhopur.”

22.As per above report, the mechanic has nowhere stated as to on what basis he reached at the conclusion that Tractor engine had been seized due to duplicate oil. There is nothing on record to show that above mechanic got the engine oil analyzed from any laboratory. Merely, on the above writing of the mechanic, no findings can be given that the 1-litre. engine oil can was a duplicate oil.

23.The entire case of the Petitioner is based on conjuncture and surmises. There is nothing on record to show that 1-litre can of engine oil sold by Respondent No. 1 was duplicate oil and due to which engine of Petitioner's tractor got seized.

24.Under these circumstances, we hold that Petitioner has miserably failed to establish any deficiency against Respondent No.1. Hence, present revision petition having no merits is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the complaint filed by the Petitioner before the District Forum also stands dismissed.

25.Parties shall bear their own cost.

 

 

 

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