PUNJAB TRACTORS LTD Vs. ANGREJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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."

(2.) 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

(3.) It would appear that despite the assurance givenby 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 g6ing by the respective pleas, evidence and material brought on record, recorded the finding of negligence/deficiency on the part of the opposite party innot 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.