HARMINDER SINGH vs Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed against the order of the District Forum, Mansa dated 23.4.1999 whereby the opposite party was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation on account of physical harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant by their negligent act in mentioning wrong chassis number and engine number in the cash memos issued to him. The opposite party was also directed to pay Rs. 500/- as costs. The facts which are necessary for determination of the controversy between the parties may be summarised as under.

THE complainant purchased Mohindra Tractor DI 275 on 6.6.1996 against cash memos dated 6.6.1996 and 7.6.1996 issued by the opposite party. In these cash memos engine number and chassis number of the tractor was given out as TL 7410 whereas in fact the engine number was TL 4710. After the purchase of the said tractor, the complainant got registration number from the S.D.M. THE S.D.M. allotted Registration No. TB 51/3136 and mentioned in the official record, chassis number and engine number as TL 7410 which had been mentioned by the opposite party-Corporation in the bills issued to the complainant regarding the purchase of the tractor. Due to wrong mentioning of engine number and chassis number in the bills and subsequently in the official record in police custody w.e.f. 27.9.1998 to 28.11.1998. The complaint was registered by the opposite party. The written reply was filed inter alia stating that due to inadvertent mistake the engine number instead of TL 4710 in the bills issued to the complainant. On this mistake having been brought to notice of the opposite party, a letter was written without loss of time to the Registration Authority for rectification of the said mistake in the official record. It was asserted by the opposite party that the tractor remained in police custody in connection with an offence committed by the complainant, the opposite party could not be held responsible for the same.

The parties led their evidence on affidavits and documents which resulted in passing the impugned order. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The complainant is before us for enhancement of compensation.

WE have applied our mind on Ex. C-6. The tractor of the complainant remained in police custody in connection with a Criminal Case No. 114 registered in Police Station Sardulgarh on 26.9.1998 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 307/342/353/186/332/323/379 of the Indian Penal Code and was ordered to be released on Supurdari to the complainant by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa vide order dated 26.11.1998. The said order is reproduced below : "Present : APP for the State. Applicant with Counsel Mr. A.S. Bhangu, Adv. Sh. Jagtar Singh, Clerk, office of S.D.M. Sardulgarh appeared alongwith registration record of Tractor PB-51-3136 and deposed that this tractor was registered in the name of Harminder Singh s/o Lal Singh and his two sons Umrao Singh and Nanak Singh, engine number of this tractor is 7410 and chassis number is also 7410. His statement has been recorded. The District Manager of Punjab Agro Industries Corp. Ltd., District Office Mansa has written letter bearing No. PAIC/MNS/98-99/F13/29 dated 7.4.1998 to the S.D.M. Sargulgarh i.e., Registration Authority to correct the chassis number and engine number of this tractor from 7410 to 4710. Copy of letter is on record. Therefore, from the perusal of entire record, it becomes clear that the tractor bearing No. PB-51-3136, DII 275 which has been registered in the name of Harminder Singh s/o Lal Singh and his two sons Umrao Singh and Nanak Singh is the same tractor but its engine number and chassis number have been wrongly written in the Registration Authority office and in the R.C. of the tractor. Therefore, this tractor belongs to Harminder Singh s/o Lal Singh and his two sons Umrao Singh and Nanak Singh. I, therefore, order that this tractor be released to applicant Harminder Singh, as the applicants have already furnished Supurdari and surety bonds in this Court. Sd/- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa. 26.11.1998."

After scanning the record, we conclude that there was no denying the fact that the mistake occurred regarding mentioning of chassis number and engine number of tractor in the cash memos issued to the complainants. The opposite party took immediate steps to get the mistake rectified. There is nothing on record to show that the land remained uncultivated because of wrong mentioning of chassis number and engine number in cash memos. The tractor remained in police custody due to F.I.R. No. 114 dated 26.9.1998 for the commission of offence punishable under Indian Penal Code. The District Forum allowed the complaint directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation on account of physical harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant. The costs of Rs. 500/- was also allowed.

COMPENSATION under Section 14(1)(d) can be granted on proof of loss suffered by the complainant on account of negligent act of the opposite party. In the present case the negligence is established that wrong chassis number was mentioned in the cash memos. It has otherwise been explained that it was due to inadvertent mistake the opposite party took immediate steps to get the mistake rectified in the official record of the Registration outhority. The pleadings of the complainant that his tractor remained in police custody w.e.f. 26.9.1998 to 28.11.1998 and thus he remained deprived of the use the tractor during this period cannot be accepted. The complainant failed to establish that he could not get the tractor released earlier on Supurdari because there was wrong mention of engine number and chassis number in the official record of the Registration Authority since finding of deficiency in rendering service was recorded in recording wrong engine number and chassis number at the time of issuance of cash memos for the sale of tractor for sometime, a token compensation at the most could be allowed. Rs. 2,000/- compensation allowed by the District Forum was just and appropriate on that account. For the reasons recorded above we do not find any merit in the appeal. This appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Order of the District Forum is affirmed. Appeal dismissed.