Haryana

Sonipat

CC/56/2015

SMT. SUNIL DEVI W/O VED PAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. NASA TRACTORES,2. INTERNATIONAL TRACTORES LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MAHENDER MALIK

26 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

                     SONEPAT.

 

                             Complaint No.56 of 2015

                             Instituted on:23.02.2015

                             Date of order:26.11.2015

 

Smt. Sunil Devi wife of Ved Pal son of Shri Ram Diya, resident of village Guhna, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

 

                                      ...Complainant.

 

                      Versus

 

 

1. M/s Nasa Tractors, Chhotu Ram Chowk, Gohana road, Sonepat through its Prop.
2. M/s International Tractors Ltd. village Chak Guraj POP Piplawala Jalandhar road, Hoshiarpur (Pb) through its General Manager.

                                      ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Mahender Malik, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Rajvir Malik, Adv. for respondent no.1.

           Sh. Rajnish, Adv. for Respondent no.2.

 

BEFORE-    Nagender Singh, PRESIDENT.

          Prabha Wati, MEMBER.

          D.V. Rathi, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that she has purchased one Sonalika tractor from respondent no.1 which was manufactured by respondent no.2  for Rs.5,99,000/- on 5.4.2014. At the time of service of the said tractor, certain defects were pointed out by the attending mechanic and it was pointed out that the fuel pump of the tractor was consuming much more fuel than its prescribed limit.  Due the said defect, the complainant could not use the tractor for agricultural purposes.  The complainant has requested the respondents several times to replace the tractor or to refund the cost of the tractor to the tune of Rs.599000/-, but of no use and this wrongful act of the respondents have caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant. So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.           The respondents no.1 and 2 appeared and they filed their separately reply.

      The respondent no.1 in its written

statement has submitted that at the time of service, all the parts of the tractor were found properly and sum of Rs.7200/- was charged from the complainant for engine oil, oil filter, fuel filter etc.  If there is any defect in the fuel pump, the pump was made by Mico Company and the said company is fully liable for any defect. The complainant is adamant to get his old tractor replaced with new one.  Rather there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 in any manner.

         The respondent no.2 in its written statement has submitted that the respondent no.1 used to obtain the signature of the consumer or their representative on the job card and Shri Ved Pal was fully satisfied with the services rendered by the respondent no.1.  The fuel pump was found running smoothly and the oil consumption depends upon the land used for agricultural Purposes i.e. cultivation and other agricultural purposes and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1.   When there is no defect in the tractor, the tractor cannot be replaced with new one and the cost of the tractor also cannot be refunded to the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       Both the parties have been heard at length.  All the documents placed on record by both the parties have been perused carefully & minutely.

4.       In the present case, the complainant has sought the relief to direct the respondents either to replace the tractor with new one or to refund the cost of the tractor. 

         Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that there is manufacturing defect in the tractor and thus, it needs replacement with new one.

         Ld.counsel for the respondents have also argued their case vehemently by controverting the allegations of the complainant.

         We have perused the document Ex.C4 very carefully and in this document, several defects regarding the tractor in question are mentioned by the complainant.  But there is nothing on the file to prove that the respondents have ever taken any action on the above said defects brought in the notice of the respondents by the complainant. 

         Some  other job cards have also been placed on record by the complainant.  These job cards also show that the engine of the tractor was consuming excess mobil-oil than the prescribed limit and the said tractor was also having some other technical defects.  Due to the defects developed in the tractor, till date, the complainant could not enjoy the tractor smoothly in agricultural purposes.

 

         However, during the course of arguments, ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that they will change the defective parts of the tractor and will make the tractor into running condition.

 

 

         Accordingly, it is directed to the respondent no.2 to replace the defective parts of the tractor and defective parts of the engine of the tractor in question and to hand over the tractor to the complainant in working condition without charging any amount from the complainant.  The respondent no.2 is also directed to give one year warranty to the complainant from the date of repair of the tractor.

         It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the present case, the respondent no.1 through his counsel has filed an application to impleading Shri Ram Tractors, Gohana as during the pendency of the present complaint, the respondent no.2 has cancelled the dealership of M/s Nasa Tractors and has handed over the same to Shri Ram Tractors, Gohana.

         So, it is directed to the respondent no.2 to get repair the tractor in question from Shri Ram Tractors, Gohana or any authorized workshop of the respondent no.2.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands disposed off.  The respondent no.2 is directed to make the compliance of this order within one month from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the law will take its own recourse.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)    (DV Rathi)                (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF     Member DCDRF              DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:26.11.2015