w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Manoj Kumar Singh v/s Vice President, Escort Construction Equipment Ltd. & Others

    Revision Petition No. 583 of 2016. (Against the Order dated 30/11/2015 in Appeal No. 192 of 2013 of the State Commission Orissa)

    Decided On, 14 March 2016

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. V.K. JAIN
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE DR. B.C. GUPTA
    By, MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: Sunil Keshari, Advocate. For the Respondents: -----.



Judgment Text

Oral Judgment:

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member.

1. The complainant purchased two hydraulic mobile cranes from the respondents. The grievance of the complainant is that one of the said cranes having engine no. S433-A35464 was found to be defective since it had problems in gear as well as tyres and there was leakage of engine oil, the hand breaks were not functioning and some noise was being emitted by the crane. The said crane was to be deployed by the complainant at the site of Vedanta Alumina Ltd. on hire charges of Rs. 70,000/- per month. The case of the complainant/petition is that since the cranes, which was found defective, was detained with the concerned branch of the respondents for 11 days, the contract awarded to him was cancelled. The delivery of the cranes was taken by the complainant on 11.05.2011, but according to him the same could not be deployed at the site of Vedanta Alumina Ltd. Being aggrieved from the defects in one of the cranes, supplied to him and cancellation of the contract, which was awarded to him, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum, seeking compensation.

2. The complaint was resisted by the respondents. It was, inter-alia, stated in the reply that the cranes were entrusted to New Haryana Orissa Roadways, as per the direction of the complainant and the same were delivered to him on 28.04.2011. On 29.04.2011, the complainant requested the branch office for installation of the cranes. The complainant signed installation report in respect of one crane on 28.04.2011, but the installation report, in respect of the crane in question was signed by him only on 11.05.2011. It was further stated in the reply that there was a slight leakage of engine oil from oil pressure gauge pipe and the same had happened due to heavy jerk in long transportation of journey and the same was replaced as a result of which the leakage stopped. Some cracks on the outer wall of the rear tyre were also noticed while it was being installed. After installation, it was noticed that the gear lever was returning to neutral from second, the said problem was also duly rectified. It was also stated in the reply that the crane was kept at the branch office only for 5 days and not for 11 days as was alleged in the complaint.

3. The District Forum, vide its order dated 25.03.2013, directed the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 8,40,000/- to the complainant along with compensation quantified at Rs. 20,000/-.

4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the respondents approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 30.11.2015, the State Commission modified the order of the District Forum by directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 48,000/- to the complainant/petitioner within two months from the date of the said order. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/complainant is before us by way of this revision petition.

5. It is not in dispute that the crane in question was commissioned and its delivery was taken by the complainant on 11.05.2011. The case of the complainant is that the crane was still defective at that time, whereas the case of the respondents is that there was no such defect in the crane when it was commissioned though the tyres had some scratches on them. Admittedly, no defect in the crane was pointed out by the complainant/petitioner while taking delivery of the crane on 11.05.2011 after it had been duly commissioned. Had there been any mechanical defect in the crane at that time the petitioner/complainant would either not have taken its delivery or at least he would have noted the said defects while acknowledging the receipt of the crane on 11.05.2011. That having not been done, the presumption would be that there was no mechanical defect in the crane at that time.

6. The complaint before the District Forum came to be filed about 3 months after it was commissioned and its delivery was taken by the complainant/petitioner. There is not a single letter written by the complainant/petitioner to the respondents during this period of three months, alleging any mechanical defects in the crane in question. Had there been any such defects, the least the complainant would have done was to write a letter to the respondent, pointing out the defects which were not rectified while delivering the crane to him after its commissioning on 11.05.2011.

7. After filing of the consumer complaint, the representative of the respondents had a meeting with the complainant wherein the parties allegedly agreed to the terms incorporated in annexure P-11 to the complaint. As per the aforesaid terms, the rear tyre and the front tyre were to be replaced with new tyres and a one-time compensation of Rs. 40,000/- was to be given to the complainant along with a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards penalty which the complainant claimed to have paid for registering the crane. As per the said agreed terms, the complainant was to withdraw the consumer complaint. However, the petitioner/complainant did not withdraw the complaint. Obviously he had a second thought in the matter and was no more willing to accept the terms referred above. It was in these circumstances that the State Commission disposed of the complaint by directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 48,000/- to the complainant/petitioner.

8. In our view, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case including that (1) no defect in the crane was mentioned wh

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ile taking delivery of the crane after its commissioning on 11.05.2011; (2) no letter was sent to the respondents after its commissioning on 11.05.2011, alleging any mechanical defect in the crane and (3) the minutes of meeting, alleged to have been held between the complainant and the representative of the respondents, agreeing to certain terms as noted herein above, we find no good reason to interfere with the orders passed by the State Commission, in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.
O R