DWARI MOTORS AUTHORISED DEALER OF " NEW HOLLAND REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR vs SARAT PATEL S/O. GHANASHYAM PATEL

Challenge in this First Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by the Authorized Dealer in "New Holland" tractor and harvester, Opposite Party No.1 in the Complaint under the Act, is to the interim order dated 09.11.2015 and 01.06.2016, passed by the Odisha State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Cuttack (for short "the State Commission"), in Complaint Case No. 64 of 2014 and Miscellaneous Case No. 389 of 2016. While by the impugned order dated 09.11.2015, the State Commission has directed the Appellant to return the tractor and harvester, subject matter of the Complaint, to the Respondent/Complainant in running condition within ten days of receipt of the copy of the said order, without insisting for payment of a sum of 3,25,000/-, claimed by the Appellant as due from the Complainant towards balance sale consideration, by the impugned order dated 01.06.2016 it has dismissed the Application filed by the Appellant for recall of the aforesaid interim order.

The main grievance of the Appellant in this Appeal is that apart from the fact that the prayer in the Complaint was for refund of the amount paid as sale consideration of the said machine, the release of the tractor and harvester to the Complainant, without adjudication on question as to whether he is liable to pay the aforesaid amount to it, would cause an irreparable loss to it, as, after delivery of the said machine, it would be difficult for it to recover the balance sale consideration.

When on 04.08.2016 the Appeal came up for motion hearing, while staying the operation of the said direction, it was clarified that pendency of this Appeal and grant of the stay order shall not preclude the State Commission from taking a final decision in the Complaint.

Upon notice, the Complainant is represented before us. An Application, No.10032 of 2016, has also been filed on behalf of the Complainant, praying for vacation of the interim stay, on the ground that since the tractor and the harvester is required to be examined by an Expert on the standing paddy, the stay granted by this Commission is coming in the way of the inspection of the machine.

Having regard to the nature of the grievance made out in the Appeal as well as in the present Application, we are of the view that the Appeal itself can be disposed of by issuing the following directions, to which Counsel for both the parties are agreed:

The Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 shall make available the tractor, the harvester and the cutter to the Expert, appointed by the State Commission, in order to assess the performance of the same;

If so desired by the Expert, the set of machines shall be taken to the fields, as may be directed by the Expert, by the representative of the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1; and

After the inspection, the machine shall remain in the possession of the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs.