Case: M.D. Sonalika International Tractor Ltd Vs. Dinesh Sharma &amp; Others

On 19.6.2002 respondent No.1 purchased a tractor manufactured by the appellant from respondent No.3. On 12.5.2003 respondent No.1 filed a complaint bearing No.87 of 2003 in the District Consumer Forum, Bhind, Madhya Pradesh alleging that the dealer (respondent No.3) had represented at the time of purchase of the tractor that the capacity of the same is 40HP (horse power) and accordingly payment was made but after some time the applicant came to know that the said tractor is made of 1035 tafe tractor engine and the model of the said tafe engine is Simpson S-324 of which power capacity is 35 HP. It was thus submitted that trusting the opposite parties and having faith on the company and believing that the tractor is made of 40HP the applicant paid for the same where the tractor is not more than 35 HP.On 22.7.2003 the District Consumer Forum, Bhind dismissed the complaint filed by respondent No.1 and observed ascareful consideration it is 40 SAE and not 40 HP in the cash memo dated 19.6.2002 issued at the time of purchase of the said tractor by the complainant. The 40SAE power capacity of the said sold Sonalika D1 740 tractor is shown in the report of Mechanical Engineering Research and Development Corporation, Ludhiana. As such the capacity of 40SAE of the tractor sold and purchased by complainant as per cash memo showing 40SAE is proved in view of the above report of Mechanical Engineering Research and Development25.6.2004 after more than 2 years from the date of purchase of the tractor and one year from the date of dismissal of complaint by the District Consumer Forum, Bhind, the respondent No.1 with ulterior motives filed a complaint case No.896 of 2005 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gohad, M.P. against respondent No.3 as well as the present appellant under Sections 120B, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC). In the complaint the allegation made is that at the time of sale it was falsely represented by the dealer that the tractor was of 40 HP capacity. It was stated that the complainant obtained information about the power capacity of the tractor and came to know that the tractor sold to him is of 33 HP capacity and the accused persons have cheated him. In the meantime, on 20.10.2005 the report was called from Central Farm Machinery Training and Testing Institute, Tractor Nagar, Budhni by M.P. State Commission. On 19.12.2005 the State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the appellant and respondent No.3 to jointly and severally pay Rs.27,000/- to respondent No.1.On 23.3.2006 the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission issued notice and granted interim stay of order dated 19.12.2005 passed by the MP State Commission. On 22.4.2006 the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class dismissed the complaint of respondent No.1. On 12.3.2007 the Additional Sessions Judge allowed the Revision Petition filed by respondent No.1 and directed the learned Magistrate to register the complaint case of the complainant under Sections 120-B, 420 and 468 IPC.The High Court by the impugned order rejected the revision petition.

Reasoning:
8. A bare reading of the FIR shows that there was no allegation so far as the appellant is concerned. In any event in the evidence recorded no specific role was attributed to the appellant.