Punjab Tractors Ltd vs Angrej Singh

MR. Justice R.C. Jain, Presiding Member-Aggrieved by the order dated 12th July, 2006 passed by the Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (for short ''the State Commission'') in Complaint Case No. 72 of 2002, M/s. Punjab Tractors Ltd. has filed the present appeal. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the Complainants-Mr. Angrej Singh and Mr. Major Singh with the following directions to the Opposite party-Appellant Company: "Therefore, in view of the discussion we accept the complaint with costs of Rs. 10,000. The Respondent is directed to replace the ten defective parts by visiting the place of complainant within one month from the date of receipt of order. It is further directed to pay Rs. 5.00 lacs (five lacs) as compensation for financial loss due to non-functioning of the combine harvester from 25.1.2002 onwards and Rs. one lac for mental and physical harassment. If the amounts are not paid within one month then the same will carry interest @ 9% p.a."

THE consumer dispute raised by the complainants was in respect of the Swaraj 8100 harvester combine, which the complainants had purchased from the opposite party at a price of Rs. 10,02,240 on 14.8.2001. The opposite party had given warranty for two harvesting seasons on the said combine harvester. However, it would appear that after the first harvesting season, certain defects developed in the combine harvester in question and the same were brought to the notice of the Opposite party, who appointed a team of technical hands, who after inspection of the machine, reported the defects in following 10 components, which the opposite party agreed to replace: S. No. Stock No. Description Qty. 1. P 426100 F. Casing 01 2. P461120B Auger Casing 01

P 455350 Blower Bottom Cover 01

P1810500 Hy. Pump 01

P426023B Bush 01

P428230B Trailar Hook 01

P 451070 Driver Assy. 01

P 423614 Hub 01

P 423004 Rod 01

M 20454 By.6309 RS1 01 3. It would appear that despite the assurance given by the opposite party to replace the said components, the components could not be replaced and protracted correspondence ensued between the parties. The opposite party insisted upon the complainants to collect the above referred components from their workshop at Chappercheri after depositing the faulty components while complainants insisted for replacement of the components at a nearby authorized workshop or at a site where the combine harvester was stationed. The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party claiming a sum of Rs. 10,02,240 as the cost of combine harvester with interest at a rate of 24% p.a. besides compensation of Rs. 6 lacs for the defective services and financial loss to the complainants due to non-functioning of the combine machine since December, 2001 and physical and mental harassment. The complaint was registered by the opposite party thereby not disputing the factum of the sale of the combined harvester to the complainants as also about the existence of defects of some components but any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party was denied. It was sought to be explained that the opposite party had been ready and willing to replace the components but the complainants themselves failed to take necessary action in order to receive the components. The State Commission going by the respective pleas, evidence and material brought on record, recorded the finding of negligence/deficiency on the part of the opposite party in not replacing the defective parts in the combine harvester due to which the complainant have suffered financially and mentally and also held that the opposite party had adopted unfair trade practice. The State Commission, accordingly, partly allowed the complaint as above. 4. We have heard Mr. G. Ramachandran, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Gaurav Puri, learned Counsel for the Respondents and have considered their submissions. Learned Counsel for the Appellant assailed the impugned order passed by the State Commission primarily on the ground that it is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the evidence and material brought on record and the finding of deficiency in service is not born out from a reading of the terms and conditions of warranty to support his contention. Learned Counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the correspondence exchanged between the parties from 25th January, 2002 to 1st October, 2002. On going through the same, we find that despite the opposite party having agreed to replace the 10 defective components, it failed to do so and insisted upon the complainants to receive the components from their workshop at Chappercheri, after depositing the faulty components. Complainants were not prepared to do so because they apprehended that firstly they had no skill to dismantle those parts from the combine harvester and in any case such an act could amount to violation of the condition No. 5 (IV) of the terms and conditions of the warranty which prohibited the owner of the vehicle from carrying out any repairs or replacement improperly/installed by any person other than authorized representative of the company. Going by the above specific clause in the terms and conditions, we must hold that the apprehension entertained by the complainants was not unfounded. In our view, in the above circumstance, the insistence of the opposite party to bring the faulty components to their works will not only amount to deficiency in service but also adoption of unfair trade practice. As the manufacturer of big machines like combine harvester, it was expected from the opposite party to have detailed any of its authorized workshop/service centre to carry out the requisite replacement of components through their own technical hands rather than insisting upon the complainant to dismantle and bring the defective components to their works. The opposite party did no service to the cause of consumer by deputing a technician to visit the machine and to render technical assistance without sending the components, which were required to be replaced. In our view, the findings of the State Commission on that account cannot be faltered. 5. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that even if the appellant could be held guilty of any deficiency in service, the State Commission was not justified in granting the kind of relief, which it has granted. The basis of this argument is that the complainants have admittedly sold away the machine to a third person during the pendency of the complaint and, therefore, the direction of the State Commission in regard to replacement of defective parts cannot be realized on the ground. It is also contended that the complainants have failed to establish any loss or injury due to the non-replacement of the components in the combine harvester and the order of the State Commission awarding a compensation of Rs. 5 lacs for financial loss due to the non-functioning of the machine, has also not been disclosed. In any case no compensation could be granted for mental and physical harassment. There appears to be force in this contention because going by the nature and extent of the deficiency in service, the compensation awarded by the State Commission cannot be justified and appears to be on much higher side. It is not in dispute that the warranty was for two harvesting seasons and the complainant had already availed one harvesting season of Kharif 2001 and the loss, if any, which the complainant can be said to have suffered was only for a second harvesting season of Rabi 2002. Although certain material has been brought on record to show that even during this harvesting season and the next harvesting season of September, 2002, the machine was found functioning in certain area of Punjab. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, the cost of 10 components was around Rs. 27,000 only. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we are of the view that the impugned order and directions given by the State Commission are required to be suitably modified. In our view, it would adequately meet the ends of justice if the appellants are called upon to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 (Rupees two lacs and fifty thousand only) to the complainants towards pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss/damages suffered by them. 6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order, so far as it has awarded a compensation of Rs. 6 lacs (Rs. five lacs towards the loss of non-functioning of the machine and Rs. one lac towards physical and mental harassment) is hereby reduced to Rs. 1.5 lacs only. Besides this amount, complainant shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. the date of complaint till payment. The amount along with interest shall be paid within six weeks from the date of the order, failing which the rate of interest shall enhance to 12% p.a. Parties to bear their own cost throughout.