National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi

Mr Ashok Bhan, President and Mr BK Taimni, Member

The Manager, New Age Motors Pvt Ltd and Anr – Petitioners

Versus

Vijay Kumar and Ors – Respondents

Revision Petition No. 3171 of 2005

Decided on 24.7.2009

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21 (b) - Purchase of Ferguson 1035 tractor for Rs. 2,61,000 - Manufacturing defect -Tractor did not function at all - Complaint filed for "defects in goods" and "deficiency in service"-District Forum directed opposite party to replace "tractor" within one month or to return Rs. 2,61,000 with interest @ 12% p.a. from date of sale and also to pay Rs. 3,000 as damages and costs - Appeal against Forum's directions - State Commission disposed of appeal with slight modification, i.e. return of Rs. 2,61,000 with interest @ 9% p.a. from date of sale along with Rs. 2,000 - Revision petition against appellate order - Held: Expert's report was not countered - There was no manufacturing defect - Revision petition allowed- Impugned order set aside.

Result: Revision Petition allowed.

Important Point

In the absence of any evidence to show to the contrary, the expert's report has to be accepted.

Order

Ashok Shan, President - New Age Motors Pvt Ltd, the Dealer of the tractor manufactured by M/s Massy Ltd (Respondent No.3), which was the Opposite Party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Una, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as 'the District Forum' for short), has filed the present revision petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended up to date).

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are:

Complainant-Respondent purchased tractor Massy Ferguson-1035 standard model fitted with FTF from the Petitioner. He paid the sale price of Rs. 2,61,000 under receipt and nothing remained to be paid by the Complainant to the Petitioner. Complainant received the tractor with accessories. According to the Complainant, the said tractor did not work for a single day. Complainant alleging inherent manufacturing defect in the tractor, reported the said fact to the Petitioner but no action was taken. After waiting for some time for positive action, the Respondent-Complainant filed the complaint.

District Forum, after taking into consideration the evidence present on record, directed the Petitioner to replace the tractor within a period of next one month after the receipt of the order failing which the Petitioner and the manufacturer were directed to return the amount of Rs. 2,61,000 to the Complainant with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of sale of tractor till final realization of the amount along with Rs. 2,000 as damages and Rs. 1,000 as costs.

Being aggrieved, Petitioner and Respondent NO.3 filed a joint appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission' for short). State Commission disposed of the appeal with slight modification thereby directing the Petitioner and Respondent NO.3 to return the price of the tractor, i.e., Rs. 2,61,000 with interest @ 9% running from the date of sale of the tractor till realisation of the amount along with Rs. 2,000 as damages and costs.

Counsel for the Petitioner has pointed out that in this case, the District Forum had appointed Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division, IPH Department, Gagret as an expert to find out as to whether there was any manufacturing defect in the tractor. The expert examined the tractor on 17.4.2001 in the presence of Subhash Chand, son of the Respondent-Complainant. The expert, after noticing the defects pointed out by Subhash Chand, son of the Respondent-Complainant, recorded his findings opposite to the defects pointed out. The same reads as under:

"The Complainant who was represented today by Shri Subhash Chand (son of the Purchaser, Shri Bishan Das) has pointed out the following defects on 5.4.2001:


1)	Lift is defective;

2)	Excessive consumption of diesel @ 6 lit res per hour;

3)	Water evaporation @ 2 litres per hour;

4)	Temperature shoots upto 100°-105° Celsius; and

5)	Back pressure in Breather.

The tractor was put to use with load for 2-7 hours and it was found that:


1)	Lift requires repair as it does not function as required;

2)	The diesel consumption is 4.5 litres per hour;

3)	There is no water evaporation as pointed out by the Complainant;

4)	The temperature remained with 70° Celsius which is normal; and

5)	There is no back pressure."

The expert had appeared as a witness. He was cross-examined by the counsel for Respondent-Complainant at length. From the report of the expert, it can be seen that except that the lift required some repairs, as it was not functioning as per the requirement, no other defect was found in the tractor. Counsel for the Respondent, who had cross-examined the expert at length, could not extract anything from him to show that there was any manufacturing defect in the tractor. No other evidence was produced by the Respondent to counter the report of the expert. In the absence of any evidence to show to the contrary, the report given by the expert has to be accepted. As per the report of the expert, there was no manufacturing defect.

Under the circumstances, the Fora below have erred in directing the Petitioner to pay the price of the tractor to the Respondent-Complainant along with interest @ 9% running from the date of sale of the tractor till final realisation of the amount along with Rs. 2,000 as damages and costs.

10.

For the reasons stated above, we allow the revision petition and set aside the orders passed by the Fora below. The complaint is ordered to be dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Revision petition allowed.