SURENDRA AGRO CENTRE OF REWARI Vs. SHER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above titled First Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 29.6.1992 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh while the Revision Petition has been filed against the Order dated 5th July, 1993 of the State Commission. The Appeal and the Revision Petition have been filed by the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 in the complaint and both are being disposed of by this Order.

(2.) THE facts as gathered from the record are that the present Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are brothers had filed a complaint before the said State Commission alleging that they were illiterate village folk of village Lisana, Tehsil Rewari, Haryana. They were in need of a tractor for cultivating their land. They approached present Appellant No. 1-Surendra Agro Centre (Opposite Party No. 1 in the complaint) through its proprietor Appellant No. 2 - Surender Singh (who was Opposite Party No. 2 in the complaint). Opposite Party No. 3 in the complaint (now Respondent No. 3-M/s. V.S.T. Tillers Tractors Ltd. is the manufacturer of the tractor in question. Surender Singh is the Dealer in the tractors manufactured by Respondent No. 3, Surendra Singh met the Complainants in their village for the purchase -of the tractor in which he was dealing. The Complainants made it clear to him that they wanted a machine capable of being used effectively in all the agricultural operations in their fields. The Complainants then approached Shri Surender Singh at his shop and asked him to show the tractor but he evaded to show and asked them to secure a loan from the Bank (and also extended hopes for a subsidy of 30% on the purchase price) and send a draft to him and then the tractor would be shown and made available to them as at that time it was not in stock. Shri Surender Singh, however, extended categoric assurance that the said tractor was sound for use in all types of agricultural operations and was good in tilling for continuous long operations and was also economical because of its low fuel consumption. Believing these assurances of Surender Singh the Complainants" agreed to purchase the said tractor. Thereafter, the Complainants obtained loan from the Punjab National Bank at Rewari and Rs. 1,14,631 /- were paid to the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 vide Bank Draft dated 7th April, 1991.

(3.) FIRST only Opposite Party Nos.1& 2 had been arrayed as Opposite Parties in the complaint but they evaded service. Thereupon, the Complainants took dusti notices and a report with regard to service was placed on the file of the State Commission. Meanwhile the Complainants made an application for imp leading the manufacturers i.e. M/s. V.S. Tillers Tractors Ltd. and the same was allowed while Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 were proceeded against ex-parter Counsel appearing for the manufacturer sought time for filing counter version. At that time appearance on behalf of the Opposite Parties Nos.1 and 2 was also put in and reply on their behalf was placed on the record. In their counter Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 took some preliminary objections but those were not pressed before the State Commission. On merits they admitted the sale of the tractor to the Complainants but pleaded that they had given a true description of the tractor and other information, material thereto to the Complainants and explained to them. It was the case of the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 that the tractor supplied was in conformity with the quotations and information. The Complainants being illiterate persons, instead of judging the tractor in accordance with its performance preferred to judge it according to its smaller size. According to them the tractor could only be judged after its use for full one agricultural season while the Complainants used the tractor for only one day with a pre-conceived notion of rejecting the same.