KRISHI PRAGATI Vs. MD HAZAR UL ISLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is against the order dated 13.07.2011 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, 'the State Commission') in First Appeal no. 248 of 2010. By this order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 15.01.2010 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Berhampur, Murshidabad (in short, 'the District Forum') in complaint case no. 126 of 2001. By the aforesaid order, the District Forum had partly allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner (opposite party no. 1 - OP 1 before the District Forum) to replace the tractor purchased by the complainant from it within two months and also pay him Rs.50,000/ - as compensation on account of harassment.

(2.) RESPONDENT 1 in this petition was the complainant before the District Forum. It is an admitted position that he purchased an HMT tractor from the petitioner (opposite party - OP 1, local authorised dealer of HMT tractor) on 06.04.1999 with the help of a loan of Rs.2.63 lakh advanced by the Murshidabad Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Islampur. According to the complainant, the tractor had many defects right from the beginning, which he brought to the notice of OP 1. OP 1 attempted to get the tractor repaired but to no avail. Thereafter, the complainant wrote to the Deputy General Manager of HMT on 30.04.2000 and on 26.06.2000 allegedly 8 parts of the tractor was replaced while the tractor was in the garage of OP 1. On 04.08.2000 another mechanic examined the tractor and reported that there were inherent defects in it. On 24.12.2000 the tractor was examined by another tractor servicing centre, which too advised replacement of as many as 20 parts. Thus alleging manufacturing defect in the tractor and deficiency in service on the part of OP 1, the complainant claimed its replacement and compensation of Rs.2 lakh on account of loss of income, etc.

(3.) THE petitioner filed its written version denying all material allegations. It is contended that the tractor was delivered to the complainant in a fit condition on 06.04.1999. The complainant availed of the first free service on 05.05.1999, second free service on 12.06.1999 and the third free service on 11.08.1999 in accordance with the conditions of the warranty. During this period, the complainant pointed out some minor problems, which were attended to. He did not report any major defect during this entire period. Therefore, the subsequent allegation of inherent defects in the tractor was completely baseless. OP 1 also averred that the complainant had engaged an unskilled person to drive the tractor and he did not even possess a valid driving licence. Further, the complainant had the tractor repaired by some unauthorised mechanic at wayside workshop, which was in violation of the warranty conditions.