AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THESE four revision petitions are directed against the same order dated 22nd April 2010 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, "the State Commission"). By this order, the State Commission partly allowed the First Appeals no. 389 and 390 of 2008 filed by M/s Hira Agro Industries (respondent in all these revision petitions) and dismissed the First Appeals (FAs) no. 1557 and 1558 of 2009 filed by Mangal Singh and Chattar Singh respectively, petitioners in these revision petitions.
THE operative part of the State Commission"s order in FAs no. 389 and 390 of 2008 is as under: "THErefore, this appeal is accepted partly and the impugned judgment dated 07.03.2008 is modified to the extent that the appellants are directed to make the payment of Rs.1 lakh as consolidated compensation to the respondent. THE appellants would also furnish fresh sale documents to the respondents relating to the sale of harvesting combine so that the respondent gets it registered with the Registering Authority". It may be noticed that the respondent (M/s. Hira Agro Industries) has not preferred any revision petition against the above-mentioned order of the State Commission. Thus, the order has attained finality so far as the respondent is concerned.
When the matter came up before this Commission, notice limited to the point of enhancement of compensation awarded by the State Commission was issued. Though additional grounds were sought to be raised by the petitioners during the pendency of these revision petitions, the relevant application was declined by this Commission"s order dated 03.05.2011.
WE have heard Mr. Ramesh Kumar Bamal and Mr. Hardeep Singh, learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the documents produced on record. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to the fact that the main ground in the State Commission"s order holding the respondent responsible for supply of defective goods [allegedly, second-hand engines of the harvestor combines supplied to the two petitioners) is stated in the following paragraph: "It is very surprising that the engine was purchased by the appellants from Nova Generator Company on 27.02.2002 while the harvesting combine was already sold to the respondent on 21.02.2002 Ex. R 1. Therefore, the bill issued by Nova Generator Company dated 27.02.2002 Ex R3 and the bill dated 01.03.2002 Ex. R4 are of no help to the appellants". Learned counsel would argue that the facts are to the contrary. This is because the document dated 21.02.2002 issued by the respondent and relied on by the State Commission was not a "bill" for supply of the above-mentioned machines but only a "quotation" which is clear from the printed heading of the document (Annexure R 1).
ON perusal of the document in question, we find that the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is indeed valid. The actual bill for sale of the harvestor combine machine is no.282 of 14.03.2002 for Mangal Singh and bill no. 283 dated 14.03.2002 for Chattar Singh. Thus, the view of the State Commission recorded above disbelieving the respondent"s stand that the engines of the harvestor combines were purchased by the respondent from Nova Generator Company, New Delhi under bill dated 27.02.2002 is thus not valid. (i) Learned counsel for the respondent has further drawn our attention to the two bills no. 301 dated 11.04.2002 and no.302 dated 11.10.2002 for Rs.850/- each issued by Vishwakarma Engineering Works, Jind in favour of Mangal Singh and bills no. NIL dated 14.04.2002 and 17.04.2002 issued by Dhiman Engineering Works, Jind Road, Khaithal, also in favour of Mangal Singh for Rs. 825/- each. Each of these bills relates to fabrication of a new 28.5 mm diameter shaft. The bill dated 11.10.2002 of Vishwakarma Engineering Works goes on to record (in Hindi) to the effect that the shaft was breaking repeatedly because of an incorrect mechanical fit. Likewise, in the case of Chattar Singh, the same Vishwakarma Engineering Works issued bill no. 303 of 17.04.2002, no.304 of 19.04.2002 and no.305 of 19.04.2002 for Rs.850/- Rs.850/- and Rs.300/- respectively. While the first and the second bills were for fabrication of a new 28.5 mm shaft, the last bill was for joining of the shaft. In addition, another bill dated 10.11.2002 was issued in favour of Chattar Singh by Vishwakarma Motors Workshop, Durga Colony, Rohtak Road, Jind for Rs.5500/- for some repairs to the engine of the harvestor. Another bill no. 375 dated nil issued by Dass Automobile Engineering Works, Hansi Road, Jind in favour of Chattar Singh for various repairs to the engine components costing Rs.1650/- was also produced. (ii) The point of interest in these bills is that while bill no. 302 dated 11.10.2002 in favour of Mangal Singh was issued by Vishwakarma Engineering Works, the same Workshop issued bill no. 303 dated 17.04.2002 in favour of Chattar Singh. It is obvious from the discrepancy between the serial numbers and dates that these bills were somehow procured by the petitioners.
Thus, the allegation that the respondent supplied second-hand engines for the harvestor combines which were not the original products of M/s Ashok Leyland Company is disproved by the documents like the bill/ invoice no. 001652 dated 27.02.2002 issued by Nova Generator Company, New Delhi in favour of the respondent (M/s Hira Agro Industries, Nabha, Punjab) and copy of the Form ST-XXIV " A issued by the Excise and Taxation Department, Punjab witnessing the dispatch of the aforesaid consignment of Ashok Leyland make engines by Nova Generator Company to the respondent. On the other hand, the veracity of the allegations of repeated fracture of the engine shafts of the harvestor combines soon after their purchase by the two petitioners becomes totally suspect in view of the discrepancies in the (machine) serial numbers and dates of the bills as noticed above. In such a situation, the entire case of the petitioners in respect of the alleged supply of defective engines and repeated failures of the shafts would become highly suspect. However, as the respondent has not come up in revision against the above-mentioned order of the State Commission, it would suffice to simply dismiss the revision petitions as being devoid of merit and allow the impugned order of the State Commission to stand, which we do somewhat reluctantly.
AS a result, the revision petitions are dismissed being devoid of merit and the petitioners are directed to pay cost of Rs.5000/- to the respondent in each revision petition before us.