RAGHBIR SINGH Vs. ZIMIDARA ENGG CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the above titled two Appeals as both arise out of the same order dated 7th September, 1993 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short State Commission). By the impugned order that State Commission has directed the Punjab Tractors Ltd. who is appellant in Appeal No. 557 of 1993 to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount of Rs.1,93,000/- from 27th April, 1992 to 23rd May, 1992 to the complainants who are appellants in Appeal No. 550 of 1993. It may be mentioned here that in the original complaint the respondent No. 1 in Appeal No. 550, The Zimindara Engineering Company Ltd. (for short the Company) was arrayed as opposite party No. 1 did while Punjab Tractors Ltd. was opposite party No. 2. It may also be mentioned here that the Company is a dealer at Fazilka in the tractors manufactured by opposite party No. 2 at Mohali.

(2.) The facts as gathered from the complaint and the records are that the complainants are agriculturists and were in need of a tractor. On 27th April, 1992 they deposited a cheque for Rs.1,93,000/- with opposite party No. 2 who sent it to their bankers on 28th April, 1992 for collection and the amount was duly credited in their account by the Bank on 29th April, 1992. The case of the complainants was that on the delivery of the cheque a tractor was to be despatched by opposite party No. 2 to the local dealer at Fazilka, in the first week of May, 1992 for delivery to them. The complainants needed a tractor desperately in May as it was the sowing season in Punjab. Event at the time of making the payment a verbal assurance was given by opposite party No. 2 that a tractor would be immediately delivered to them at Fazilka. The manufacturers despatched a tractor to the local dealer i.e. the Company but they delivered the tractor meant for the complainants to some other person. (There is no evidence in support of this allegation). In spite of a number of calls, tractor was not delivered to the complainants and it was delivered to them in the first week of June, 1992 when the harvest and sowing season had almost come to an end. On account of the late delivery of the tractor, the complainants were not able to sow more than 20 acres of land with cotton crop. The grievance of the complainants was that due to the late delivery of the tractor they have suffered a loss of more than 1 lakh of rupees.

(3.) On being noticed, the opposite parties filed separate counters contesting the complaint. Opposite Party No. 2 averred that the complainants' son, Mr. Randhir Singh, then posted as Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, requested their {i.e. opposite party No. 2's) legal Adviser Mr. R.P. Sawhney, Advocate to arrange for the delivery of a Swarj - 855 tractor at Fazilka. Mr.Sawhney approached them (i.e. manufacturers) but he was informed that the tractors were sold to the dealers on principal to principal basis and the dealers alone sold the tractors to customers and they (i.e. manufacturers) have no control on delivery of tractors to the customers by the concerned dealer. Mr. Sawhney conveyed the same to Mr. Randhir Singh who again contacted Mr. Sawhney with a cheque of Rs. 1,93,000/- for getting the same deposited with the answering opposite party. On the personal request of Mr.Sawhney, the cheque was accepted and Mr.Sawhney confirmed that the complainants would contact separately the dealer at Fazilka for taking delivery of the tractor. The answering opposite party or its official did not give any assurance regarding the delivery of the tractor. Otherwise also no such assurance could be given because the answering opposite party never sold tractors to individual customers.