LIMITED, BATHINDA vs SIKANDAR SINGH

THIS appeal is by M/s. Punjab Agro Industries, opposite party. The challenge is to the order of the District Forum, Bathinda dated July 28,1997 whereby direction was given to the appellant to pay compensation for the loss suffered by the complainant for non-replacement of the defective batteries and thus non-use of tractor @ Rs. 10/- per day with effect from October 8,1996 till the date of replacement of the batteries and a sum of Rs. 1,500/- towards costs to the complainant. The complainants Sikandar Singh and Kak Singh purchased a tractor from M/s. Punjab Agro Industries Corporation, opposite party No. 1, the dealer on November 3,1995. Two batteries were fitted in the tractor for which there was warranty of one year as given by the manufacturer M/s. Exide Products Ltd., opposite party No. 3 Since defect occurred in the batteries, the complainants lodged a report with the dealer on October 3, 1996 i.e. well within the warranty period. The dealer sent the defective batteries to local office of M/s. Bharat Motor Co., Bathinda, a dealer of M/s. Exide Products Ltd., who ultimately returned the same for being sent to Jalandhar office, but that attempt did not bear any fruit that ultimately the complainant approached the District Forum, impleading opposite party No. 1, the dealer, opposite party No. 2, M/s. H.M.T. Ltd., manufacturer of tractor and opposite party No. 3, M/s. Exide Products Ltd., manufacturer of the batteries. The dealer in his reply broadly accepted the pleadings of the complainant and pleaded that liability with respect to the batteries was of opposite party No. 3, the manufacturer of the batteries under the warranty. All efforts to get the batteries replaced failed. The manufacturer of the tractor, M/s. H.M.T. filed the reply, but no reply was filed by M/s. Exide Products Ltd. Subsequently, opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 were deleted vide order dated Febuary 20,1997.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has argued that the liability was of the manufacturer of the batteries, who had given warranty for one year and hence the dealer was not to be made liable. This contention in the context of the present case cannot be accepted. If all the opposite parties had remained on the file order could be passed against one or all making liable, jointly or severally. However, when a consumer has purchased an article such like tractor from local dealer, he has to approach him for any of the defects found in the tractor; and that is what the complainants did in the present case. Since on merits, it is not disputed that the defect occurred within a year of purchase of the tractor in the batteries, the necessary relief was to be granted to the complainant and that too against dealer. It is left to the dealer to claim this amount either from the manufacturer of the tractor or from the manufacturer of the batteries, at his own level. Finding no merits in the appeal, the same is dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/-. The interim order granting stay stands vacated. Appeal dismissed.