Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/15/847

M/S TRACTOR (TRACTOR & FARM EQP.) - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJNARAYAN MEENA - Opp.Party(s)

SH. R.K. LOKHANDE

10 Nov 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 847 OF 2015

(Arising out of order dated 09.07.2015 passed in C.C.No.02/2014 by District Commission, Sehore)

 

MASSEY TRACTOR (TRACTOR & FARM

EQUIPMENT LIMITED)

THROUGH MANAGER,

861, ANNA SALE,

CHENNAI-600 002                                                                                              … APPELLANT.

 

                       Versus

 

1. RAJNARAYAN MEENA,

    S/O SHRI DHANNALAL MEENA,

    R/O VILLAGE-NAPLI, POST-DHABLA KELWADI,

    TEHSIL & DISTRICT-SEHORE (M.P.)

 

2. PRABHAT TRACTOR & AUTO MOBILE,

    THROUGH DEALER, INDORE NAKA,

    SEHORE (M.P.)                                                                                             … RESPONDENTS.                                

                                 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

           HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL                                     :  MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :  MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri R. K. Lokhande, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Vijay Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

           None for the respondent no.2 though served.

                  

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on  10.11.2022)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

           

                   The opposite party no.2/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) assails the order dated 09.07.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sehore (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.02/2014, whereby the District Commission

 

-2-

has partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’).

2.                Brief facts of the case are such that the complainant had purchased a tractor of 60 HP from the opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.6,55,000/-. It is alleged that the opposite parties gave him 52 HP tractor in place of 60 HP tractor. The complainant also alleged that the said tractor was defective, since its purchase. The complainant thus approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties for selling him defective tractor, seeking its replacement or refund of its cost with compensation.

3.                The opposite parties in their respective replies before the District Commission made a submission that the tractor was not suffering from manufacturing defects. Whenever, the complainant had approached them, reporting problems in the tractor, the opposite parties promptly provided the services and had also replaced its turbo, nozzle and pump. Since the tractor is not suffering from any manufacturing defect, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. 

4.                The District Commission partly allowed the complaint holding that in absence of any expert mechanical report, the tractor cannot be held to be having manufacturing defects. The District Commission directed the opposite parties jointly or severally to remove the defects reported in the

-3-

said tractor within a period of one month. In addition compensation of Rs.15,000/- with further sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs is also awarded. Hence this appeal.

5.                Heard. 

6.                Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the District Commission has given contradictory findings in the impugned order.  When it is held by the District Commission that the tractor is not suffering from any manufacturing defects, the award of cost and compensation is unwarranted. The opposite parties promptly repaired the tractor, whenever the complainant had approached them, regarding the problems reported in the said tractor. He thus argued that the impugned order directing payment of compensation and costs deserves to be set-aside.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand supported the impugned order and argued that this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

8.                On going through the record, we find that there is a categorical submission by the opposite parties that they had promptly responded to the complainant, by removing the problems reported in the said tractor. The District Commission has acknowledged the aforesaid conduct of the opposite parties.  It is also apparently clear that the opposite parties replaced certain parts of the tractor. The District Commission has also held

-4-

that the said tractor, in the absence of any mechanical expert report, cannot be held to be suffering from manufacturing defects and has thus accordingly given directions regarding repairs of the defects reported in the said tractor. Pertinently, no directions for replacement or refund of cost of the tractor has been given in the impugned order. Considering the facts of the case, we find that compensation awarded by the District Commission appears to be on higher side and the same deserves to be reduced.

9.                In wake of the foregoing discussion, we conclude that the directions given in the column (b) of the last paragraph of the impugned order deserve to be modified. Therefore the compensation of Rs.15,000/- is directed to be reduced to Rs.10,000/- and the cost of Rs.5,000/- is directed to be reduced to Rs.3,000/-. Rest of the directions contained in the impugned order shall remain unaltered.

10.              With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal by the opposite party no.2/appellant stands partly allowed with no order as to costs. 

 

 

      (JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR) (S. S. BANSAL) (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                      

                         PRESIDENT                            MEMBER                MEMBER