NANHAKOO SAH Vs. VIDHAYAWATI DEVI & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Factual matrix are that on securing loan of Rs. 3,48,786 from Bank and also making down payment respondent No. 1 purchased an Indo Farm tractor from petitioner and respondent No. 2 on 4.10.2004. However, after delivery of the tractor snags were witnessed as tractor was not capable to plough the field and also that it was consuming excess fuel. Complaint was registered by respondent No. 1 with petitioner and respondent No. 2. Though a Mechanic was deputed, no improvement could be brought by Mechanic, namely, Ambika and Sheo Kumar, Engineer. A report too was given by Engineer Sheo Kumar who was deputed by respondent No. 1 and 2 for inspection of the machine. In his report, Sheo Kumar, confirmed aforesaid defects having surfaced with the tractor. Witnesses too were examined on behalf of the parties.

(2.) The District Forum, regard being had to the pleadings of the parties, rejecting contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and respondent No. 2, directed them either to replace the tractor by new one of same model or to pay value of the tractor. Petitioner and respondents No. 2 were also directed to pay annual interest of Rs. 42,500 on loan amount to the Bank till delivery of new tractor or payment of cost of the tractor. Compensation of Rs. 50,000 was also awarded by the District Forum.

(3.) Appeal too preferred by them, did not find favour with the State Commission which aiso saddled petitioner and respondent No. 2 to pay litigation cost of Rs. 5,000. Two fold contentions were raised by petitioner and respondent No. 2. It was contended that Sheo Kumar being not an Engineer was not qualified to give appropriate finding of an expert. The report submitted by Shiv Kumar got blurred, that having been obtained by respondent No. 1 under duress. Since respondent No. 1 could not liquidate loan borrowed from petitioner, filing of complaint was to neutralise loan of Rs. 75,000 raised by her. However, this contention reiterated before us did not find favour with Fora below, there being no evidence about Shiv Kumar having given report, adverse to opposite parties under threat or coercion. The tenor of report of Shiv Kumar goes to show that even if pump is replaced no significant improvement would be brought in the machine. Among opposite parties while respondent No. 2 is manufacturer of tractors respondent No. 1 happens to be authorised dealer. Though opposite parties state about respondent No. 1 having availed two free-services to the tractor, admittedly there had been no job card and hence contention raised did not inspire confidence. That apart said Shiv Kumar had not taken pain to file an affidavit. It was more so essential when report of Shiv Kumar was shown to be tainted report and added to this, there was no finding of other expert. Even then Fora below saddled the opposite parties to either replace the tractor by new one or to pay value of the tractor. No dealership agreement was placed on the record to determine liability of manufacturer along that of the dealer.