Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/13/2116

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SACHIN - Opp.Party(s)

22 Jul 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 2116 OF 2013

(Arising out of order dated 08.07.2013 passed in C.C.No.288/2012 by District Commission, West Nimar, Mandleshwar)

 

1. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LIMITED,

    AKURDI ROAD, KANDIVALI EAST, MUMBAI (M.S.)  

 

2. NIMAR TRACTORS, SANAWAD ROAD,

    KHARGONE (MP)                                                                                 … APPELLANTS.

 

Versus

 

SACHIN S/O MANGILAL JAISWAL,

R/O KOTHAKHURD, TEHSIL-KHARGONE (M.P.)                                 …. RESPONDENT.   

                     

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

            HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA   :          MEMBER

         

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

 

                Shri Mohan  Chouksey, learned counsel for the appellants.

           Shri Mukesh Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

 O R D E R

(Passed On 22.07.2022)

 

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member: 

           

                   This appeal by the opposite parties/appellants is directed against the order dated 08.07.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Nimar, Mandleshwar (for short

 

-2-

‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.288/2012 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent has been allowed.

2.                The case of the complainant is such that in January-2012 he had purchased a new tractor after replacing with the old one which was financed by the opposite party no.1. The tractor run smoothly till first service. At the time of second servicing i.e. after 466 hours, it was told that after long running the tractor became hot. The opposite party no.1 changed some ring and it was told that it will not become hot. After some time when the problem continued, mechanic of opposite party no.1 visited his place and told that there is some manufacturing defect. On 31.01.2012, when the complaint was made, it is informed that liner, piston and crane were became out of order and asked to approach the company. Till then the tractor is with the opposite party no.1, which is in bad condition and is not in running position. The complainant therefore filed a complaint for replacing the tractor with new one or to refund price Rs.7,48,500/- with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- totaling Rs.9,48,500/- along with interest @12% p.a.

3.                The opposite party no.1 resisted the complaint stating that the complainant purchased the tractor for commercial purpose and therefore, the complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The tractor was delivered after PDI report in his full satisfaction. On 04.02.2012 under the doorstep installation the

-3-

head mechanic guided the complainant about its management and to run. Till first service i.e. after 92 hours no problem was found in the tractor. At the time of second servicing i.e. after 466 hours on 29.05.2012 when the problem reported, it was found that the tractor was negligently driven by unskilled person due to which some parts of engine rubbed, which were changed. Before the complainant himself, the tractor was being run for three hours on trial and it was not found heated. The complainant was instructed not to be driven by unskilled driver.

4.                The opposite party no. 2 resisted the complaint stating that the tractor was delivered to the complainant in his full satisfaction. Some parts were changed during warranty period and there was no technical fault in the tractor. If any problem persists within a period of two years of warranty, the opposite party no.2 only is liable to change the parts free of cost. At present there is no fault in the tractor.

5.                The District Commission allowing the complaint directed the opposite parties to refund price of the tractor Rs.7,48,500/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days. Compensation of Rs.20,000/- with costs of Rs.1,000/- has also been awarded.

6.                Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

7.                On perusal of record we find from the order sheet dated 08.04.2013 in which the District Commission directed the complainant to

-4-

take the tractor on 10.04.2013 and to ascertain whether tractor is running smoothly or not meaning thereby it becomes hot after running or not. In compliance of the order dated 10.04.2013, the complainant has filed his report dated 23.05.2013 stating therein that when he took the tractor and run the same in agriculture field it became hot within one hour. On 12.04.2013, mechanics of opposite party no.1 came to his place and repair the same and the problem of becoming hot removed but when it was begin run after 10 days, it was found that it again became hot and also did not carrying load. However we find that the signature of the complainant on the compliance report dated 23.05.2013 is quite different from the signatures of the complainant on his complaint and affidavit dated 09.11.2012 filed in support of his complaint. Signatures in the remark column of the order sheets dated 23.05.2013 & 10.06.2013 are also different which can be easily compared by naked eye.

8.                On going through the record of appeal memo, we find that the appellant has filed four documents as per list along appeal memo which were not filed before the District Commission. 

9.                We have carefully perused the application and the four documents filed by the opposite parties/appellants on record. On the document no.1 dated 16.02.2012 of Mahindra Finance, filed by the appellant there is signature of the complainant which are in the complaint and affidavit

-5-

but in the document no. 2 dated 01.05.2013, document no. 3 dated 01.05.2013 and in document no. 4 dated 20.07.2013 again the complainant’s signature are different.  

10.              On due consideration of the aforesaid documents accompanied with application filed by the appellants, we are of a considered opinion that the documents deserve to be taken on record since the aforesaid documents were not filed before the District Commission.  Also, we find the signatures of the complainant are appear to be different at one place and different at another place. In this view of the matter we are of a considered view that the matter deserves to be remanded back to the District Commission for decision afresh after considering the documents filed by the appellants before this Commission as also to see regarding signatures of the complainant.

11.              In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that the matter be remanded back to the District Commission. Record of the case be sent to the District Commission at the earliest. Copy of application filed along with accompanied documents be also sent to the District Commission along with record and original be retained in this appeal. 

12.              Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 16.08.2022.

 

-6-

13.              The District Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law.  All the contentions of the parties are kept open. Parties be afforded opportunity to contest their respective claims. Needless to mention that observations made hereinabove shall not come in way of the District Commission, while passing the order.

14.              With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal stands disposed of. However, no order as to costs.

           

       (A. K. Tiwari)      (Dr. Srikant Pandey) (D. K. Shrivastava)

 Presiding Member            Member                     Member