VIR PARTAP Vs. PUNJAB TRACTORS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the rejection of the complaint of the appellant by District Forum, Kamal on 27th October, 1994. The appellant in his complaint had approached the District Forum for grant of a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of hiring of another tractor and Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment etc. alongwith request for replacement of defective parts of the tractor, which had been purchased by him from the respondents. The tractor developed defects first time in November, 1992 and then again in July, 1993. It is the admitted case of the parties that on both occasions the bearing of the left hand side rear differential tube had to be replaced. It was the contention of the complainant that the bearing got damaged due to a mechanical defect, which was not repairable, but the District Forum came to the conclusion that since the dealer had been replacing the defective parts promptly and they had met the condition of the warranty to the satisfaction of the complainant, there was no question of any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

(2.) The main contention of the appellant is that the failure of the bearing was only due to the defect in the left tube of the differential and he had produced the affidavit on one Satbir Singh Malik in support of his claim. However, as pointed out by the respondents, Shri Satbir Singh Malik is not a qualified Engineer nor a Specialist on the subject. He has only some experience of implements and running of tractors, which is not sufficient to place reliance on his opinion. However, no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming from the respondent as to why the bearings are getting damaged so frequently. The tractor was purchased on 23rd October, 1992 and the bearings failed in November, 1992 and again in July, 1993. The mere replacement of the bearings was not enough and it was the duty of the respondents, to have gone into the real causes of the failure of the bearings. However, since the appellant has also not been able to produce any expert opinion on this subject, the District Forum was at a disadvantage in coming to a conclusion on this point. No doubt, there is some defect in the machine, which has been leading to the major break-down of failure of the bearings and because of this the appellant could not make full use of the tractor. Under the circumstances, whereas we agree with the District Forum that no order can be passed regarding the replacement of the left differential tube in the absence of any reliable evidence of a defect in the same, the least that the appellant deserves is to be compensated for the inconvenience suffered by him due to the frequent major break-down of the tractor. Since the failure of the bearings on two occasions in November, 1992 and July, 1993 is admitted by the respondents, we accept this appeal and award damages to the extent of Rs.10,000/- as claimed by the appellant in his complaint. However, there is no justification for any other damages due to harassment and inconvenience as the complaints of the appellant were duly and promptly attended to.

(3.) In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly accepted with a direction that the respondents shall pay Rs.10,000/- to the appellant as compensation within a period of 30 days, otherwise action may be taken against them under-Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Appeal partly accepted.