Bull Machines Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shri Mohanlal Patidar dated 2009-05-12
Document ID: LANCDRC2009E1201
Appeal against the order by which the State Commission directed Bull Machine Private Limited to refund to the complainant the cost Rs. 4,40,220/- of the tractor-operated back-hoe and dozer supplied through its authorised dealer along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the complaint until payment--- The complainant’s case before the State Commission was that OP 2 persuaded him, an agriculturist, to buy both the tractor and the BHD by explicitly and repeatedly representing that the said tractor and the BHD were fully compatible. The combination would make for a multipurpose machine capable of various agricultural and associated functions and thus enhance the returns from his investment. However, within 100 hours of operation with the BHD, the tractor developed several problems and could not be operated. There was leakage of oil from the trumpet housing of the tractor that, on complaint, was attended to by a mechanic of OP 2 but the problem continued. Even after subsequent repairs at the service centre of OP 2, the combination could work only for three hours. It became clear (and was admitted by OP 2) that the tractor was unable to take the load of the BHD---the impugned order cannot be sustained in its entirety because the finding regarding manufacturing defect in both the tractor and the back-hoe dozer sold to the complainant is not based on due appreciation of the evidence on record and is also not in accord with the mandatory provisions of the Act in respect of the procedure to be followed in determining such allegations. read more +