JAIDEV PRASAD SINGH Vs. AUTO TRACTOR LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of a claim filed by Jaidev Prasad Singh, Appellant in First Appeal No. 19/89 before the State Commission, Bihar. Complaining about certain serious defects in a tractor that was supplied to him by M/s. Auto Tractors Ltd., Pratapgarh (Appellant in first Appeal No. 17/89) and seeking recovery of a sum of Rs. 72,500/- which the complainant had paid by way of cost of the tractor together with interest and a further amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of damages for the inconvenience and loss caused to him on account of the defective functioning and consequent non-utilisation of the said tractor. The State Commission after a detailed discussion of the materials produced before it by both sides came to the conclusion that the tractor supplied to the complainant did suffer from various defects set out by it in its order and that the opposite party No. 1 had failed to rectify those defects in spite of representations having been made by the complainant. In the light of those findings, the State Commission directed the opposite party to get the tractor thoroughly repaired by changing all the defective parts at their own cost within three months from the date of the order. A further direction was also made by the State Commission that the opposite party (Appellant No. 1 in first Appeal No. 17 of 1989) should issue to the complainant a fresh warranty ensuring for a period of six months from the date of delivery of the tractor to him after effecting thorough repairs. In regard to the claim for compensation made by the complainant the State Commission observed that there was not sufficient evidence before it regarding the nature and extent of loss actually suffered by the complainant. However, since the tractor supplied by the opposite party was found to have been defective and it could not, therefore, be used by the complainant for a quite long time the State Commission held that the complainant must be assumed to have suffered loss on that account and that he should, therefore, be granted a 'token compensation' of Rs. 10,000/-.

(2.) First Appeal No. 17 of 1989 has been filed by M/s. Auto Tractors Ltd. & Ors. contending that the finding recorded by the State Commission that the tractor was defective is not warranted by the evidence adduced in the case and that, in any event, the State Commission was not justified in directing the Appellant to give a fresh guarantee for a period of six months from the date on which the tractor is properly repaired and delivered to the complainant. Another ground taken in Appeal No. 17 of 1989 is that the State Commission was not justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of a token of compensation to the complainant (Appellant in Appeal No. 19 of 1989) when he had not adduced any evidence to prove the extent of the alleged losses suffered.

(3.) First Appeal No. 19 of 1989 has been filed by the complainant and his grievance is that the State Commission should have allowed him the full amount of compensation which he had claimed namely Rupees one lakh instead of allowing to him only a token compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.