LAWS(NCD)-2005-8-86

ASHOKE KHAN Vs. ABDUL KARIM

Decided On August 30, 2005
ASHOKE KHAN Appellant
V/S
ABDUL KARIM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The say of the petitioner is that he is an authorised dealer of M/s. Bengal Tools Ltd. which is dealing in the sale of power tillers used for the purpose of agriculture and also as a carrier under the name and style of ˜Krishi Pragati. Respondent No. 1 (complainant) approached the petitioner for purchasing the ˜power tiller after obtaining a loan of Rs. 70,000/ - from the State Bank of India, Murshidabad, by mortgaging the land. The price of the power tiller was Rs. 80,000/ -. The power tiller was delivered on 27.3.1996, which was hypothecated with the Bank.

(2.) It is the contention of the complainant that on taking the delivery of the power tiller, it was noticed that it had developed snags. Therefore, the complainant approached the petitioner (the dealer) for repair of the same, during the warranty period. The petitioner sent mechanics on several occasions to repair the said tiller, but the defects could not be removed. It is also contended that on 23.1.1998 one mechanic of the petitioner took away some valuable parts of the said power tiller. The complainant failed to get an relief from the petitioner and the respondent No. 2, the manufacturer, M/s. Bengal Tools Ltd., therefore, filed Complaint Case No. 18 of 1998 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Murshidabad. The District Forum arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner was the authorised dealer of respondent No. 2, the manufacturer; by its letter dated 29th December, 1998, the dealer admitted that the power tiller was not performing normally; and, it was not of standard quality. On the basis of the correspondence, the District Forum arrived at the conclusion that immediately after purchase of the said tiller it developed some snags and during the warranty period some materials were also supplied. Considering the aforesaid facts, by judgment and order dated 31.8.1998, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the dealer and the manufacturer (petitioner and respondent No. 2) to jointly and severally return the consideration money after deducting 10% towards depreciation for the use of the said power tiller.

(3.) Admittedly, the order passed by the District Forum was not challenged by the manufacturer nor any revision application was filed by it.