MANAGER MEHTA MOTORS Vs. RAMESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order dated 18.2.2003 of State Commission, Madhya Pradesh in Appeal Nos. 1484/2001 and 1300/2001. Brief facts of the case are :

(2.) The respondent No. 1 Shri Rameshwar is the original complainant and he purchased a Tractor Bajaj Tempo OX Tractor 45 for Rs. 3,00,225/- from the revision petitioner Mehta Motors on 21.5.1998. The said tractor is manufactured by Bajaj Tempo Ltd. respondent No. 2 and later they discontinued making this model. Respondent No. 1 Shri Rameshwar filed a complaint in District Forum claiming replacement of the tractor alleging manufacturing defect and deficiency of service from the manufacturer and the dealer. His case was that the revision petitioner had sold the very same tractor earlier to one Mr. Parasram who after finding that it had some manufacturing defects returned it and this tractor was sold as new one after making interpolation in warranty card. Respondent No. 3 Bordia Motor's case was that, he was appointed as local dealer from 17.10.1999 to 31.3.2000, and that at the relevant time of purchase of tractor, he was not the dealer as it is evident from purchase bill and job card on record. It is Mehta Motors (revision petitioner) who sold the tractor to Shri Rameshwar. It is further argued that he took the said vehicle only on humanitarian ground and, he repaired the tractor later and explained that he has the custody of tractor with him under these circumstances. The tractor was purchased by Shri Rameshwar after taking loan from respondent No. 4 Adim Jati Sahakari Sewa Samiti who is a proforma party and no compensation or claim has been made against them.

(3.) The State Commission disposed of both the appeals filed by the revision petitioners and respondent No. 3 by a common order directing both Mehta Motors and Bajaj Tempo Ltd. to jointly and severally pay Rs. 3,00,225/- within two months and Rs. 1,000/- costs to be paid by Bajaj Tempo. We are unable to see any reason for us to interfere with the findings of State Commission. It clearly returned the finding that there is manufacturing defect in the said tractor and also that Mehta Motors (revision petitioner) had made a fool of complainant Shri Rameshwar by selling an old tractor with defects which was sold earlier to another person and sold as new one. Respondent No. 3 was only doing service much later and he was not involved in the sale of this defective tractor nor did he receive any money from Shri Rameshwar. Hence, we agree with the findings of State Commission that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have no liability or responsibility in the deal which is made by the appellant. Manufacturers of the tractor Bajaj Tempo cannot escape from liability of replacing the tractor. In view of the fact that they are not manufacturing the said tractor now, the price paid be returned jointly with their dealer, the revision petitioner Mehta Motors who tried to dispose of the second-hand tractor after fully knowing it has defects and sold it as new one. The practice of dealers who resell an old product as new one through their marketing tactics and by making changes in the documents and fooling people should be condemned. The manufacturers when they come to know of such false representations and deals made by the dealers should take action, and not defend them.