F.A.No.1032/2006 against C.D.No.15/2006, District Forum, Mahaboobnagar.

K.Laxmaiah, S/o.K.Narayana,

Aged .55 years, Occ:Agriculture,

R/o.Narva Village and Mandal,

Mahaboobnagar District.                                                          ….. Appellant/

                                                                                                                   Complainant.

                        And

1. M/s.L.N.Swamy Engineering Company Limited,

    Door No.1-11-57/6, Behind Andhra Bank,

    Mahaboobnagar, represented by L.N.Swamy

    Authorized Dealer.

2. M/s.Escorts Ltd., Agree Machinery Marketing

    Division, 18/4, Mathura Road, Faridabad,

    Haryana State, represented by Monika Molik,

    Manager, Corporate Secretariat and Law.            ….. Respondents/

                                                                         Opp.parties

Counsel for the Appellant                     :       Sri G.Balakistaiah

Counsel for the Respondents                :       -Respondents served..

                        Quorum:       SRI K. SATYANAND, HON’BLE MEMBER

                                                                        AND

                                    SRI R. LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAOM MEMBER

                                                TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE

TWO THOUSAND NINE

        Oral Order  : ( per Sri K. Satyanand, Hon’ble Member )

*****

Not satisfied with the quantum of relief granted by the District Forum, Mahaboobnagar in C.D.No.15/2006, the complainant filed the present appeal.

The facts of the case are briefly as follows:

The complainant purchased a tractor from opposite party No.1, manufactured by opposite party No.2, on 24-10-2004.  The said tractor soon developed repairs.  The complainant approached opposite party No.1 for rectification.  Though they were rectified, the troubles repeated.  The complainant, therefore, approached the District Forum for replacement of the vehicle by a new one and also compensation in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and also consequential relief’s.

Opposite parties 1 and 2 remained exparte.

In support of his case, the complainant filed his own affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A7.

On a consideration of the evidence tendered, the District Forum passed an order directing the opposite parties to effect the repairs, on the complainant surrendering the vehicle within 15 days of the receipt of its order and thereupon the opposite parties attending to all the defects and render it free from all defects and deliver back the vehicle to the complainant with a fresh usual warranty.  The District Forum also directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.5,000/- as also costs of Rs.500/-.

The complainant filed the appeal for enhancement of the relief in terms of what he asked urging the following among other grounds.  The District Forum ought to have allowed the prayer as it is.  The District Forum ought to have ordered for replacement of the defective vehicle by a new vehicle. It ought to have seen that the volume of damage sought by the complainant was reasonable and it should have upheld the entire claim.

None appears for the respondents though they were served.  The counsel for the appellant was heard.  The respondent did not avail the opportunity to file written arguments also.

    In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant as also the points urged in the grounds of appeal, the following points arise for determination.

        Whether the remedy granted by the District Forum to the complainant is inadequate as contended by the complainants?

          Whether there are good grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum?

        The main prayer of the complaint was that in as much as the vehicle undisputedly purchased from opposite party No.1 and manufactured by opposite party No.2 was persistently giving trouble, he was entitled to get the vehicle replaced by a new vehicle.  The District Forum did not agree with that contention.  It is not a case of a long row of job cards showing recurrence of defects.  The complainant could prove only one instance of the vehicle falling into repairs, which is borne out from Ex.A3.  Ex.A3 shows few defects as rightly observed by the District Forum, the complainant could not show by resorting to some kind of expert evidence that those defects pointed out by Ex.A3 could not have been rectified by effecting repairs.  There is absolutely no other document except Ex.A2 which refers to the condition of the vehicle being in repairs but it was a letter that led to issue of Ex.A3.  In these circumstances, the District Forum was right in ordering the opposite parties to repair the vehicle thoroughly instead of acceding to the request of out and out replacement of vehicle as desired by the complainant.  The other grouse of the complainant is that though he demanded compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, the District Forum gave only Rs.5,000/-.  It is a matter of common knowledge that compensation cannot be on a windfall scale.  It is supposed to be down to earth, and realistic besides being glued to the proper data calculated to establish actual damages.  In this case except his own estimations, the complainant did not tender any independent evidence.  As a matter of fact even Rs.5,000/- granted by the District Forum appears to be more in the nature of solatium than in the nature of virtual damages based on the concrete evidence on record.  For the reasons stated above, we are firmly of the opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the well considered and balanced order passed by the District Forum.

        Accordingly the appeal fails and is dismissed but without costs in the circumstances of the case.

MEMBER.

    (KS)

MEMBER

  (RLNR)

Dated 02-6-2009.