Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal
N.K. Jain, President; B L Khare and Smt Pramila S Kumar, Members Manager, Punjab Tractors Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Ram Das & Others - Respondents
Appeal Nos. 511/02, 519/02 & 521/02	Decided on 28-01-2004

 

2.	Shri V K Saxena, Advocate appears for Punjab Tractors Limited, the manufacturer of the tractor in question. Shri Himanshu Rai, Advocate appears for Premanchal Motors Pvt Ltd, the dealer of Punjab Tractors. Shri Somender Saxena, Advocate appears for Ramashankar Patel proprietor of Vijay Tractors, the sub-dealer of opposite party No.2. Shri Mohan Chouksey, Advocate appears for complainants.
3.	The entire dispute is regarding a tractor purchased by complainants from Premanchal Motors through Vijay Tractors. Punjab Tractors Ltd are the manufacturer of the said tractor. The complainants' case was that the tractor soon after its purchase developed many defects which could not be remedied by the local dealer and sub-dealer. According to the complainants, the tractor suffered from manufacturing defects. He therefore, approached the Forum praying for replacement of the tractor or payment of its price together with compensation.
4.	During arguments, it was pointed out that the complainants had made an application under Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for getting the said tractor inspected by some independent agency so as to find out the defects, if any. The District Forum fixed the case for consideration of this application on 3-10-2001. However, on that date (3-10-2001), no hearing as such was done on the said application and the case was straightaway fixed for final arguments on 17-10-2001. On this date also, the case was not taken up. After a lapse of 4 months on 20-02-2002, final order was passed in the case, requiring, the opposite parties to replace the tractor and pay compensation to the complainants. Obviously, the Forum has not proceeded in accordance with law and procedure prescribed under the Act of 1986. The main issue in the case was about the alleged defects in the tractor and the same could be decided by getting the tractor examined by some expert. The Forum, having fixed the case for consideration of the application made for that purpose, omitted to make any order on that application. Secondly, no final arguments were heard in the case and straightaway final order was passed in the case. The order is obviously passed without giving the parties any opportunity of hearing. The order is wholly unsustainable in law and the case should go back to the Forum for a decision afresh after hearing parties on the said application for expert examination and also on the merits of the case.
5.	Accordingly, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and direct that the case shall now go back to the Forum for decision afresh in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations and directions made hereinabove. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 11-02-2004. The Forum is also expected to make all possible endeavour to decide the case at the earliest, say, within 4 months of the date of appearance of parties before it.
6.	This order be retained in Appeal No. 511/02 and a copy of the same be placed in Appeal Nos. 519/02 and 521/02.

Appeal allowed accordingly.