MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD Vs. CHANDAN MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 06.07.2012, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 218/2011, "Sri Chandan Mondal versus Rudra Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. & Ors." by which, while allowing appeal, the order dated 07.03.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly, dismissing the consumer complaint no. 139 of 2008 filed by respondent no. 1/complainant was set aside. This single order shall dispose of both these revision petitions and a copy of the same be placed on each file.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent no. 1, Sri Chandan Mondal and another, purchased one Mahindra Tractor known as "Bhumi Putra" Model No. 47501 REV-3371 in the month of December 2006 from the petitioner, Rudra Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Golap Bag, P.O. & District Burdwan after raising a loan from the Hooghly Co-operative Agri and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Pandua, District Hooghly. The other petitioner, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., are the manufacturers of the said tractor. It has been alleged in the complaint filed by Sri Chandon Mondal that just after 15 days of the purchase of the vehicle, he started facing problems with the same. It was found that the water pump system of the vehicle had broke down without any reason, fan was also not operating and then the battery allotted at the time of purchase, was found to be not functioning. The tractor had to be shut down for many days and the complainant incurred heavy losses. The complainant lodged a complaint with the office of OP, Rudra Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Asansol, District Burdwan. The water system was repaired by the OP, but the battery was not replaced. Again, after a few months, the pump nozzle element was badly damaged and the vehicle was taken to the OP who detained the same for 7 days in their factory, but the repair work done was not to the full satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter, the engine started giving problems and there was frequent percolation of water inside the vehicle, resulting in non-functioning of the vehicle. All these problems faced by the complainant were within the warranty period of the vehicle. The complainant had to hire another tractor for his agricultural operations and moreover, he had to pay the instalments of loan amount raised from the bank. The complainant requested that the OPs should be asked to replace the tractor or to refund the purchase amount to the complainant and also compensate him for mental agony and harassment. The District Forum vide their order dated 07.03.2011 dismissed the complaint, saying that there was no credible and adequate evidence for manufacturing defect in the vehicle. An appeal was filed against the said order of the District Forum before the State Commission. The State Commission passed the following order:-

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the material on record.