STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BIHAR, PATNA
Appeal No. 626 of 2011
Sushil Kumar Sharma, General Manager, International Tractor Ltd., Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur, Punjab-146022 through Sri P.T. Sood, Company Secretary, M/s International Tractors Ltd. Vill- Chak Gajran, PO- Piplanwala, Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur, Punjab, Pin- 146022, authorized signatory of the appellant.
… O.P. no. 3/Appellant
Versus
1. Ram Binod Singh, S/o- Late Ram Bahadur Singh of Vill- Birpur, PS- Jurabbuanpur, District- Vaishali
…. Complainant/Respondent no. 1
2. Chandra Bhushan Prasad Singh, S/o- Late Parikshan Singh of Mohalla- Chankya Colony, PS- Hajipur Sadar, Districtg- Vaishali authorized Dealer and seller of Sonalika Tractor, N.H. 77, Dighi Kala, Hajipur, District- Vaishali
…. O.P. no. 1/ Respondent no. 2
3. Sanjay Kumar Thakur, agent of Sonalika Tractor, Son of Late Chandeshwar Thakur of Vill- Khilavat Chhapra, PO & PS- Bidupur, District- Vaishali
…. O.P. no. 2/ Respondent no. 3
Counsel for the appellant: Adv. Sanjay Singh Thakur
Counsel for the Respondents: Adv. Kumar Samarjeet Singh
Dated 14.03.2023
As per Sanjay Kumar, President.
O r d e r
Present appeal has been filed on behalf of International Tractor Ltd. through its General Manager for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 19.08.2011 passed in Complaint case no. 88 of 2010 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Consumer Forum, Vaishali has allowed the complaint case of complainant and directed appellant to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
Briefly stated the facts of the case is that complainant had purchased a Sonalika Tractor from its authorized dealer namely Sharda Agriculture Dighi Kala, Hajipur after obtaining loan and had mortgaged his property in favour of dealer namely Sharda Agriculture Dighi Kala.
It was further stated that the tractor was delivered to complainant on 07.04.2009 but soon thereafter, it was found that tractor was not working well and several defects were noticed while driving the tractor for which complaint was made to opposite party no. 2 (Agent) and opposite party no. 3 (manufacturer) but no action was taken on their behalf to remove the defects and thereafter complainant brought a mechanic who disclosed that some parts of tractor are second hand and opposite party no. 1 and 2 were informed but no action was taken on their behalf.
Notices were issued to opposite parties no. 1 (Dealer),2 (Agent) & 3 (Manufacturer) but inspite of valid service of notice they did not appear before the District Consumer Forum to contest the claim of complainant.
The District Consumer Forum on the basis of pleadings of the complainant as made in complaint petition allowed the complaint case of complainant without taking any ex-parte evidence either oral or documentary of the complainant. The District Forum held that since there is no other version on behalf of opposite parties to disbelieve the version of complainant, the case is allowed and directed Rs. 3,00,000/- compensation to be paid to the complainant by the opposite party within 30 days from the date of order. Aggrieved by said ex-parte order present appeal has been preferred by appellant/O.P. no. 3.
It is submitted on behalf of counsel for the appellant that even in ex-parte proceeding the complainant has to establish any deficiency in service of the opposite parties by leading ex-parte oral and documentary evidence. The District Consumer Forum only on the averment made in complaint petition can not allow the case as complainant has to establish his claim by leading oral and documentary evidence even in ex-parte proceeding.
The counsel for the appellant has relied upon section 13(1) (b) & (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which deals with respect to procedure on admission of complaint which reads as follows:
(b) where the opposite party on receipt of a complaint referred to him under clause (a) denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the District Forum, the District Forum shall proceed to settle the consumer dispute in the manner specified in clauses (c) to (g);
(c) Where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which can not be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum;
Counsel for the appellant has further relied upon judgment and orders passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra & Anr. I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC), Sundeep Polymers Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Mercedes Benz India Limited III (2009) CPJ 389 & Krishi Pragati Vs. Hazar ul Islam & Ors III (2012) CPJ 677.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties this Commission finds that order passed by the District Consumer Forum is not sustainable in the eye of law as the District Consumer Forum has not followed the procedure as prescribed under section 13(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as applicable in present case) and accordingly, the order as impugned in this appeal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Consumer Forum, Vaishali at Hajipur to be decided a fresh in accordance with procedure as prescribed under section 13(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The appeal is allowed.
(Ram Prawesh Das) (Sanjay Kumar,J)
Member President
Md. Fariduzzama
