Haryana

StateCommission

A/179/2016

ESCORTS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BACHAN SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

GEETA GULATI

03 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

 

First Appeal No.179 of 2016

Date of the Institution:29.02.2016

Date of Decision:03.01.2017

 

Escorts Limited, 15/5, Mathura Road. Faridabad, District Faridabad, through its Authorized Signatory Vipul Sharma.

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

1.      Bachan Singh alias Chamela Singh R/o VPO Sounta, Tehsil & District Ambala.

 2.     M/s S.D. Trading Corporation, General Sales and Service, Farmtrac Tractors, Hospital Road, Ambala City through its proprietor.

                                                                                                .….Respondents

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mrs.Geeta Gulati, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                    Mr. Ravi Kant, Advocate counsel for the respondents.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1. Escorts Limited, Faridabad -OP is in appeal against the Order dated 24.12.2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint of Bachan Singh has been allowed by directing the OP-2 as under:-

(i)To replace the engine of the tractor in question of the complainant and handover to him in perfectly working condition to his entire satisfaction.

(ii)     To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony etc. to the complainant.

(iii)    Also to pay Rs.10000/- as litigation costs  including Advocate’s fee etc.   

2. Briefly stated, according to the complainant,  on persuasion  of Ops, complainant agreed to  purchase a new tractor Make Farmtrack-60 from OP No.1 in exchange of his second hand tractor. The OP No.1 issued sale letter/invoice bearing No.4933 dated 24.01.2012 of the new Tractor which was registered  vide registration No.HR01AD-8275.  It has been further alleged by the complainant that from the very beginning of its purchase, the said tractor was having manufacturing defect in its engine/oil pump/filter etc. as it was consuming excess diesel than required. The defects were reported to the OP No.1 within 20 days from the delivery of the tractor as the tractor was not having proper power of ploughing & pulling. Whenever it was put on cultivation on the Harrown rather it was giving heavy smoke due to high consumption of diesel.  The tractor in question was also checked by Mechanic of OP No.2, but defects were not rectified. Besides it, tractor was also checked with another tractor of the same model in the fields and found defective in pulling harrow and consumption of diesel etc. On 17.04.2012, a job card No.M/JC/57 was issued and tractor was checked and some filters were changed with some other accessories and the OP No.1 charged Rs.2350/- for the repairs of the said tractor. This was uncalled for as the tractor was within warranty period. Therefore, a legal notice was served upon the Ops whereby on 25.11.2012, the tractor was called by OP No.1 for check up and it was kept in the workshop for three days and a job card was prepared  on 27.11.2012 vide receipt No.4256. Some parts were checked & repaired and the tractor was handed over back on 27.11.2012, but the manufacturing defect in the engine still persisted. This act and conduct of the opposite parties, according to the complainant, made them liable for the damages and harassment caused to him. Aggrieved against this, the complainant approached the District Forum for directing the OPs to replace the defective parts of the tractor alongwith compensation for harassment and mental agony etc.
3. Upon notice, Op No.2 did not appear despite service through registered post and they was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.03.2013.
4. Contesting the complaint, the OP-1 pleaded that the complainant was himself was negligent for not getting the tractor serviced in time and  was therefore, not entitled to any relief.  Moreover, the sale letter was issued on 24.01.2012,  but the tractor in question was delivered on 25.11.2011 against proper delivery challan to the complainant and its warranty period was one year with three free services i.e. 1^st  service of tractor was due upto 50 hours, IInd service was due upto 300 hours and IIIrd service was due upto 600 hours. The complainant sent the tractor for Ist service within limitation whereas he sent the tractor  for IInd service at 429 hours and for IIIrd service at 776 hours. Therefore, the complainant could not take the IInd & IIIrd service of the tractor within time. He had also removed the original company fitted Air Filter from the Tractor’s engine and installed the duplicate air filter by purchasing the same from the local market. As a result of this, dust started entering into the engine causing trouble in the working of Tractor. Thus, the complainant was himself negligent as he failed to get the tractor serviced in time.  After the IIIrd service, mechanic of the OP No.2 also inspected the tractor in the presence of complainant and handed over the said tractor to the complainant as fully satisfied and the job card was also signed by the complainant in this regard.  It has been denied by the OP that the tractor was called for check up on 25.11.2012 rather the complainant himself sent the tractor for IIIrd due service.  Hence, there was no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of Ops and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  However, the learned District Forum rejected the pleas raised by the OP and accepted the complaint vide order dated 24.12.2015 granting the aforesaid relief. 
5. Against the impugned order, the OP/appellant has filed appeal before us reiterating their pleas as raised before the District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the complainant had purchased the new tractor on 24.01.2012. He had driven the tractor for about 776 hours and had availed the service benefits for four times. It was much later that the complainant thought of approaching the OPs for alleging manufacturing defect in the tractor. This shows that no defect in the functioning of the tractor was detected by the complainant at the initial stage and it was after consuming excess quantity of the diesel that he faced some trouble in the functioning of the tractor. This by itself rebuts the allegations of manufacturing defect and at the most can be said only a functional and mechanical disorder.
6. Moreover, the report relied upon by the complainant is not from some technical hand of mechanical engineering nor does it contain any sound reasoning proving the manufacturing defect. This report alone is not sufficient enough to justify the replacement of the engine of the tractor, as it has been number of times noticed that engineers of Haryana Roadway do not have knowledge or expertise of driving or repairing tractors. In this regard it would be advisable to reproduce below an extract from the order of the Hon’ble National Commission, in Revision Petition No.2822/2012- Escorts Tractors Ltd. Vs Lal Bahadur, which fully applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case:-

“admittedly complainant has  not produced any document pertaining to qualification of mechanic satynarayan. Admittedly, mechanic was employed with Haryana Roadways and in the roadways, tractors are neither run nor repaired but buses are repaired. Nowhere, has it been mentioned that this mechanic had any knowledge about driving and repairing of the tractor. In the case in hand there is no evidence on record to substantiate that mechanic satyanarayan had any special knowledge regarding tractor and in such circumstances inspection report made by satyanarayan cannot be relied on an Ld. District Forum and State Commission have committed error in allowing complaint on the basis of aforesaid inspection report, which was apparently not done in presence of petitioner. There is no iota of evidence to prove that there were manufacturing defects in the tractor”.                       

7. We fully and respectfully follow the line of reasoning of the aforesaid binding precedent and hold that the conclusion arrived by the learned District Forum regarding manufacturing defect in the tractor is wholly incorrect. At the best, in the interest of justice we direct that the OPs shall replace the Fuel Pump of the tractor free of cost to make it functional and road worthy. The remaining directions issued by the learned District Forum shall remain the same. Consequently, the impugned Order passed by the learned District Forum is modified and the appeal stands modified accordingly.
8. The statutory amount of Rs.15,200/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

January 03rd, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.