Dr (Mrs) Arati Mohanty, Presiding Member - Heard Mr R K Patnaik the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr N B Das the learned Counsel of M/s Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd, manufacturer of the tractor. None present for the complainant. It is an appeal at the instance of the dealer M/s Supreme Automobiles against the order of the District Forum, Mayurbhanj in C D Case No. 125/1997 directing to pay Rs. 4,000/- as compensation and Rs 1,000/- as cost.
The brief fact of the case is that the complainant had purchased Mahindra and Mahindra tractor from the manufacturer through the dealer for which he had paid a sum of Rs. 1,98,865/- by way of demand draft through the bank. The grievance of the complainant is that the tractor was delivered beyond the stipulated time by the dealer and manufacturer for which he is not liable to pay any interest to the bank for which he filed a case before the District Forum claiming compensation and interest on delayed period of delivery of tractor. The District Forum has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- towards harassment and loss of agricultural income with Rs. 1,000/- cost to be paid by the dealer and manufacturer.
During the course of hearing emphasis was given by Mr Das learned Counsel for the manufacturer that the Forum below while adjudicating the matter has not taken into consideration the documents filed by the dealer. It was also urged that the award passed by the Forum below is liabile to be set aside since the complainant has failed to prove his claim regarding delay in delivery of tractor. On perusal of the letter dated 25.5.1996 in which the order was placed by the bank for supply of the tractor to the dealer and from the letter dated 23.7.1996 it is transparent that the vehicle was delivered on date 23.7.1996. It was also brought to our notice a quotation supplied by the manufacturer, which was filed by the dealer in which it has been stipulated under Clause-6 that the vehicle will be supplied within 4 to 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the cost of the vehicle.
After perusal of the above documents we are satisfied that the vehicle was delivered within the stipulated time i.e. within 4 to 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the cost of the vehicle. In our considered opinion, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the dealer as well as the manufacturer has caused to the complainant.
With the aforesaid observation, we accordingly set aside the order dated 28.10.1998 passed by the District Forum, Mayurbhanj and the compensation and cost imposed on the dealer and manufacturer are hereby set aside. In the result, the appeal and cross-appeal filed by the dealer and manufacturer respectively are allowed. The complaint petition is dismissed. No cost.
Pramodnath Das, Member - I agree |
