PREMANCHAL MOTORS PVT. LTD. Vs. RAMDASS & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three revision petitions (RPs), filed by the original opposite party (OP) No. 2 (Premanchal Motors Private Ltd., Bhopal), the original complainants (Ramdas and others) and OP No. 1 (Punjab Tractors Ltd., Ropar) respectively, challenge the common order dated 1st December, 2007 of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, the State Commission), disposing of appeal Nos. 815, 986 and 987 of 2004 against the common order dated 23rd March, 2005 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, the District Forum), Sehore. By this order, the State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum which had directed the OP Nos. 2 and 1 to pay compensation of Rs. 1.50 lakh and Rs. 25,000 respectively as damages and both together Rs. 2,000 as costs to the complainants, within one month of the date of the order, for deficiency in service in respect of repairs to a tractor manufactured by OP No. 1 and sold to the complainants by OP No. 2. In addition, the State Commission awarded a further compensation of Rs. 1.25 lakh to be paid by OP Nos. 1 and 2, jointly and severally, to the complainants. The OPs were directed to make the payment within one month of the date of the State Commission's order, failing which they were also directed to pay interest @ 12 per cent per annum upto the date of payment.

(2.) THE few undisputed facts are that the complainants -all farmers by profession (and all related to one Khayaliram -wife, three sons and one daughter), jointly bought, for the sum of Rs. 2.18 lakh, a Swaraj tractor (manufactured by OP No. 1) from OP No. 2. To buy the tractor, the complainants took a loan from the local District Cooperative Bank, apparently under a State Government scheme. The scheme (reportedly) entitled the complainants to a Government subsidy. The complainants took delivery of the tractor from the showroom of OP No. 2 on 24.5.1997.

(3.) THIS case has had a chequered history that warrants a somewhat detailed recapitulation of the sequence of events leading to these RPs. In their complaint of 20.5.1998 to the District Forum, the complainants contended that right from the date of purchase' they faced problems with this tractor (including, alleged excessive fuel consumption, leakage of oil/fuel, overheating of the engine, inability to take load, excessive emission of smoke, improper functioning of the hydraulics, i.e. on the whole, being incapable of use for agricultural purpose'). On oral complaint to OP No. 2, the latter asked the complainants to contact its sub -dealer, viz., Vishal Tractors (original OP No. 3; impleaded as respondent No. 7 in RP No. 1018). OP No. 3 allegedly advised that the problems would get resolved with time. The complainants alleged that thereafter they also showed' the tractor several times to OP No. 2 and complained about its continued malfunctioning but OP No. 2 did nothing to repair the defects and merely repeated what OP No. 3 had stated, namely, the defects would get resolved with the use of the tractor over time. Claiming that the tractor was unfit for agricultural purpose, the complainants contended that it could also not be used to pull a trolley for transportation of heavy goods. They further alleged manufacturing (mechanical) defects in the tractor and held OP No. 1 responsible therefor. The complainants also alleged that when their several oral complaints to repair the defects were not heeded by OP No. 2, they even asked OP No. 2 to replace the tractor but again to no avail.