Case nº Revision Petition No. 1278 of 2013 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, March 12, 2014 (case Muktaji Vishnuji Chemate Vs Escorts Ltd.)

JudgeFor Appellant: Mr. Amol Karande, Advocate and For Respondents: None
PresidentK.S. Chaudhari, J. (Presiding Member) and Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member
Resolution DateMarch 12, 2014
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


K.S. Chaudhary, J. (Presiding Member)

  1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 7.1.2013 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 2667/2006, Escorts Ltd. & Ors. v. Mr. Muktaji Vishnuji Chemate & Anr., by which while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum allowing complaint, was modified. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner purchased tractor on 10.8.2004 from opposite party No. 5/Respondent No. 2, which was manufactured by O.P. Nos. 1 to 4/Respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 5. Respondents advertised and assured that tractor would require 2.5 litre diesel per hour whereas it was consuming 6 litres diesel per hour from time-to-time. Tractor was taken to O.P. No. 5 and he changed some parts but problem was not solved. Alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite party, complainant filed complaint for replacement of tractor and damages. Opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 resisted complaint and submitted that there was no independent expert evidence and in absence of that there was no manufacturing defect in the tractor. It was further submitted that complaints of complainant were attended promptly and consumption of diesel depends upon use of tractor, load being carried, drought conditions and other related aspects and prayed for dismissal of complaint. O.P. No. 5 also resisted complaint and submitted that tractor consumed only 2.2 litres of diesel for 16 kms. and there was no defect. It was further submitted that if there was any manufacturing defect, he was not responsible and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint partly against O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 and directed them to replace tractor by new one, having no manufacturing defect and further allowed Rs. 10,000 as compensation, Rs. 5,000 towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation. Appeal filed by O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and learned State Commission...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT