Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/943/2018

Rajasthan Tractor - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Kailash Chand - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Tantiaya

31 Jul 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 955/2018

 

Escorts Private Ltd., 18/4 Mathura Road, Faridabad through General Manager

Vs.

Kailash Chandra (deceased) his heir Sharda Devi & 2 ors. all r/o village Malakheda, Tehsil & Distt. Alwar.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 943/2018

 

Rajasthan Tractor Machinery, Delhi Road, Alwar through authorized signatory.

Vs.

Kailash Chandra (deceased) his heir Sharda Devi & 2 ors. all r/o village Malakheda, Tehsil & Distt. Alwar.

 

Date of Order 31.7.2019

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mr.s. Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr.Vaibhav Bhargava counsel for the appellant Escorts Pvt.Ltd.

Mr.Swaraj Sharma counsel for the complainant consumer

Mr.A.R.Tantia counsel for Rajasthan Tractors

Mr. Rakesh Kaushik counsel for Kotak Mahindra

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

Both these appeals are preferred against the single order hence, are decided by this common order.

 

The contention of the Excorts Pvt. Ltd. is that order was passed ex-parte whereas the notices were never served to them. The tractor was damaged due to accident as it was fell in river and the complainant respondent were carrying excess load on the tractor. There is no evidence to the effect that tractor was having any manufacturing defect hence, the claim should have been dismissed.

 

The same contention has been lodged by the dealer Rajasthan Tractor. His further contention is that he is not liable in case the Forum is of the opinion that vehicle suffers from

3

 

manufacturing defect.

 

Per contra the contention of the consumer is that the claim has rightly been allowed. The tractor was broken into pieces hence, no expert opinion was needed and insurance surveyor is also of the opinion that tractor suffers from manufacturing defect.

 

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case. Escorts Pvt. Ltd. has submitted written arguments.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the complainant respondent has purchased the tractor on 9.7.2014. In November 2014 it suffered piston ring crack which was cured on 29.11.2014. Again on 28.6.2015 during the warranty period when brother of the complainant Hazari was plying the tractor it was broken into four parts. The tractor was shifted to the service station but nothing has been done. Hence, claim has been filed.

 

Both the appellants have denied their liability and

4

 

contention was that the consumer respondent was using it for carrying heavy stones but no evidence to this effect has been submitted before the Forum below by the appellants.

 

The other contention of the appellants is that tractor fell in river and this fact has been disclosed by the complainant himself to their employees but no affidavit of any employee is being submitted and even in job sheet it has not been noted that tractor was fell down in the river. Hence, all these contentions have no force.

 

The contention of the appellant is that to prove the fact that vehicle suffers from manufacturing defect no expert evidence has been submitted. Hence, complaint could not be proved and reliance has been placed on I (2007) CPJ 2 (NC) Chandeshwar Kumar Vs. Tata Engineering Locomotive Co., II (2008) CPJ 111 (NC) Tata Engineering Locomotive Co. Vs. Sunil Bhasin and judgment passed by the Chhatisgarh State Commission in FA/12/ 531 National Garage Vs. Subrat Saha & ors. where looking at the facts of the cases expert opinion was found necessary but here in the present case the fact is not in dispute that while plying the vehicle it was broken into four

5

 

pieces. In the claim form submitted to the insurance company the similar fact has also been narrated and surveyor of the insurance company who is an independent person is also of the view that this is a loss due to manufacturing defect. Hence, facts of the case speak itself that due to manufacturing defect the tractor broken into pieces within the warranty period and the claim has rightly been allowed against the appellant Escort Pvt. Ltd.

 

The contention of the appellant Escorts Pvt.Ltd. is that the claim is ex-parte against the appellant. Hence, opportunity of hearing be allowed to him. The order sheets of the case goes to show that notices were sent to the registered office of the appellant which were not returned and presumption has been raised about the service and this presumption has not been rebutted by the appellant. This is not the contention of the appellant that notice had not been sent to the registered office of the company. Hence, in view of the above the appellant knowingly has not appeared before the Forum below and appeal preferred by the Escorts Pvt. Ltd. is liable to be dismissed.

 

6

 

From the above discussion it is more than clear that vehicle suffers manufacturing defect and the Rajasthan Tractors has rightly pointed out that the dealer cannot be held liable for the deficiency as regard to manufacturing defect and reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by the apex court in C.A.No. 4754 of 1999 Hindustan Motors Ltd. Vs. N.Siva Kumar where the apex court is of the view that in cases of manufacturing defect in the vehicle the dealer cannot be held liable

 

In view of the above, the appeal filed by the Rajasthan Tractors stands allowed and order of the Forum below dated 24.10.2018 against Rajasthan Tractors is set aside. The appeal filed by Escorts Pvt. Ltd. stands dismissed.

 

(Meena Mehta ) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm