Escorts Ltd vs Deva Ram

Avm J. Rajendra, Avsm Vsm (Retd.), Presiding Member

The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 20.11.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (‘State Commission’) in FA No.221 of 2015. The State Commission allowed the Appeal and granted Rs.2 Lakh lump sum compensation to the Complainant and set aside the order dated 21.11.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur-IV (“District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No.1156 of 2012 wherein the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

As per office report, there is a delay of one day in filing of the present Revision Petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned.

For the convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he purchased an Escorts Tractor Farm Trac 45, HP 42, Engine No.I.2047198 and chassis No.I.2046111 from the Respondent No.2/ OP-2 on 17.11.2005 for a sum of Rs.3,99,451/-. On 27.11.2005, there was a manufacturing defect in the engine of the tractor and due to the defect in the engine, tractor did not work properly. The Complainant left the tractor in the workshop of OP-2 on 01.12.2005.  The job card mentioned that the engine would be replaced by 12.12.2005 but the engine was not replaced and on 14.12.2005, the broken part were repaired and handed over to the Complainant and the engine was not replaced. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum.

In reply, Petitioner/OP-1 stated that the tractor was sold by OP-2 to the complainant in perfect condition. The Complainant failed to furnish any expert report with respect to the manufacturing defect. In its absence, the Complainant is not entitled to any relief. Denying his allegations the complaint was sought to be dismissed. In reply, Respondent/OP-2 pleaded that the tractor was running smoothly. As and when it was brought to workshop of OP-2, it was checked and repaired to the Complainant’s satisfaction.

The learned District Forum vide order dated 21.11.2012, allowed the complaint and directed the OPs as follows:

“Hence in our considered view, there is no expert evidence to prove that there was some manufacturing defect in the tractor.  The complainant himself has received his tractor upon repairs after his complete satisfaction through the medium of Exhibit 4.  This proves that there was no manufacturing defect in the tractor.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service that can be proved against the respondent.  The complaint is not fit to be allowed.  Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.

ORDER

Hence in view of the above deliberation, the complaint is dismissed.”

Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Respondent/ Complainant filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The learned State Commission, vide order dated 20.11.2017 allowed the Appeal with the following observations:

“I have considered these arguments. In my view, statements made by the respondents before the Ld. District Forum, which not only merit dismissal, but are also absolutely ridiculous. Such statements cannot be accepted from such big tractor manufacturer nor his authorized seller. The statement is absolutely peculiar and ridiculous that the engine of the tractor of complainant was replaced due to manufacturing defect but after some days, Complainant came to Respondent No.2 to complain that it is making noise and hence old engine be fixed, and therefore the old engine was fixed. The manufacturer has stated that the complainant wanted old engine and for this reason he filed this complaint, which shows that in fact the engine of the tractor was not replaced. The affidavit filed by Sh. Vinod Dikshit for Respondent No.1 is also false that the engine of the tractor was replaced. After getting a new engine, no person would want its old engine back. Ld. District forum has dismissed the complaint on the basis of Exhibit 4, in which it is mentioned that complainant took the tractor back after being satisfied, this has been prepared very cunningly, there is no mention of the engine being replaced, otherwise the number of the new engine would have certainly been mentioned. This way, respondent no. 2 has cunningly tried to cheat the complainant, and respondent no. 1 also cannot be exempted from this. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that for all items of manufacturing, both the authorized seller and the manufacturer are jointly and severally responsible. In such circumstances, I find that there is merit in appeal to be allowed and hence the impugned order of Ld. District Forum is set aside.

On the point of compensation, it was considered that the incident is of year 2005. Ld. Counsel of complainant has stated that after the year 2005, complainant's tractor is lying unused. Although I am not amenable to accept this argument that the tractor was parked unused for last 12 years and even if it is parked for the past 12 years, then now it cannot be said with certainty whether it can be used by replacing its engine. Although it has been proved above that Respondents had admitted the manufacturing defect in the tractor, yet they did not replace it. Hence, under these circumstances, I find that for compensation an amount of Rs 2,00,000/- would be appropriate to be paid to complainant. The responsibility for paying this amount shall be on the Respondents jointly and severally.  Hence, this appeal is allowed.”

(Extracted from translated copy)

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/OP-1 reiterated the grounds in the Revision Petition and asserted that the impugned order of the learned State Commission is contrary to Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act and the law laid down by this Commission in plethora of judgments and it is for the Complainant to establish the claim for the replacement of the engine supported by the opinion of an expert automobile that the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defect. He sought to set aside the impugned order of the State Commission and affirm the order of the District Forum2.  He has relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Misra & Ors., MANU/CF/0086/2009;

(ii) M/s. Tractor Dealer Farm Equipment And Machinery Co. Vs. Ghanshyam Maurya & Ors., R.P. No.488/2016, decided on 02.11.2016 by NCDRC;

(iii) Sushila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr. B.N. Prasad, 2010 SCC OnLine NCDRC 144;

(iv) Ranganayakamma And Anr. Vs. K.S. Prakash (Dead) by LRs. And Ors., (2008) 15 SCC 673.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Complainant argued in support of the impugned order passed by the learned State Commission. The existence of defect is proved by the job card dated 01.12.05 issued by the service center/authorized dealer of the Petitioner/Opposite Party itself wherein it was mentioned that engine (Replacement) will be done by 12.12.2005. He sought dismissal of the Revision Petition with costs.  He has relied upon the judgment in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. Ronald Dsilva & Ors., R.P. No.780-781/2020 decided on 14.07.2023 by the NCDRC.

I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the Parties.

In this case, the main issue pertains to the alleged manufacturing defects in the tractor purchased by the Complainant from the petitioner. The Complainant argued that various parts of the tractor, such as the tepid rod of the engine, camp shaft bush, and radiator, were found to be broken, leading to extensive replacements and repairs shortly after purchase. Dissatisfied with the responses from the petitioner and the quality of service provided, the complainant claimed that the existence of defects was evidenced by a job card issued by the authorized dealer of the petitioner, which mentioned engine replacement scheduled for 12.12.2005. The tractor has remained idle and unused since 2005.

On the other hand, the petitioner contended that the job card only reflected repair work and not engine replacement. They argued that the State Commission should not have allowed the appeal without evidence showing that the tractor was not working and that any non-operation was due to a manufacturing defect.

In any case, it is uncontested that the requirement for change of engine of the said tractor was conceded by workshop in-charge of the authorized dealer of the Petitioner on 01.12.2005 to be done by 12.12.2005. Therefore, no further expert opinion was necessary.

In view of the foregoing discussions, I find no illegality or impropriety in the order of the learned State Commission dated 20.11.2017. Consequently, Revision Petition No.695 of 2018 is Dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs. All the Pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. The Registry is directed to release the deposited amount, if any, after compliance of the order.