Balaji Auto Mobiles V/S Hanumanthappa S/o Sanjeevappa - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

DCFR 16/07

Hanumanthappa S/o Sanjeevappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Balaji Auto Mobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. M Nagaraj

23 Nov 2007

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. DCFR 16/07

Hanumanthappa S/o Sanjeevappa						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Balaji Auto Mobiles Eicher Tractor						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Hanumanthappa against the two Respondents (1) The Balaji Automobiles- Authorized Dealers for Eicher Tractors Sindhanoor, and (2) The Eicher Tractors (Unit of TAFE Motors and Tractors Ltd.,) Shivanda Circle- Bangalore. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The complainant is an agriculturist having agricultural establishment at Hunkunti village. He purchased a tractor bearing No. KA-36 TA 3417 from Respondent NO-1 manufactured by Respondent NO-2 for Rs. 4,00,000/- by raising loan from Sri. Ram Finance Sindhanoor in the month of March-2006. Within two months of purchase there was trouble in the Engine of the tractor, dicks, itch and tyre etc., When the vehicle was on the road it used to jump and consuming more diesel and the engine used to become very heat and buttons of big tyres are spoiled. Therefore the complainant was not able to carry-out his agricultural work properly. In the month of October-2006 he visited the show-room of the Respondent NO-1 and requested to attend the manufacturing defects and other defects of the tractor sold to him. The Respondent NO-1 gave his deaf ears therefore he left his tractor in his show-room. The Respondent NO-1 after few days attended only minor repairs without attending the major defects and requested the complainant to take the tractor stating that the tractor was all right. Having believed the words of the Respondent No-1 the complainant took his tractor. But within a week again he noticed the defects cited above and the complainant was not in a position to utilize the tractors for his agricultural operation. Immediately in the month of November-2006 he again went to the Respondent NO-1s show-room and left his tractor in his show-room and wrote a letter to Respondent No-2 intimating the defects in the tractor sold to him and requested to attend the defects immediately. But the Respondent NO- 1 & 2 have not attended the defects of tractor though the tractor is in their possession for about (4) months and even they have not intimated anything to the complainant. Therefore on 05-01-07 he wrote a letter to the Respondent No-1 stating that though (4) months have lost they have not attended the defects in the tractor and he is suffering due to purchase of such defective tractor from Respondents. Surpassingly on the next day i.e, 06-01-07 the Respondent No-1 wrote a letter to the complainant stating that there was no any manufacturing defects and requested to take delivery of the tractor from Respondent NO-1. He immediately went to the shop of Respondent No-1 and examined the tractor but it was in the same condition as it was earlier. Therefore he came back without taking the delivery of the tractor. The Respondent No-1 while selling the tractor to the complainant had given a Warranty Card disclosing the warranty period for (2) years or 2500 hours which ever is earlier. The complaint made by the complainant regarding the defects in the tractor are with in the period of Warranty. However the Respondents have not cared for clauses of their own-warranty-card. Hence there is deficiency of service in supplying defective tractor and also not attending the defects within a reasonable period and keeping the tractor for long period with them. The Respondents have also not cared to reply to the letters frequently written by him. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to the Respondents to replace the tractor of similar discriptions which shall be free from any defects or to return the price paid with interest and also to pay damages of Rs. 2,00,000/- sustained by the complainant due to negligence of the Respondents. 2. The Respondents 1 & 2 appeared through counsel and both have filed separate written version. In the written version Respondent No-1 has contended that the Officer of MRF Tyre Company inspected and given report that there is no manufacturing defect in MRF tyre but it was damaged due to ALW (Alternative Lug Wear) resulted from un-even contact pressure at tyre/road contact area due to excessive load transfer from trailer. The warranty claim on the same is not acceptable. At the time of Inspection tyre was left with 18mm NSD i.e, 47% of the tread life is still left. There is no Engine defect and disk defect. The mechanics and engineers of the Respondents have inspected the tractor of the complainant and further they have changed the disk, hitch and two tyre on goodwill of the business. Further the Respondent NO-1 informed through letter but the complainant has not taken the tractor in-question. The complainant has availed the loan from Sri.Ram Chits Finance and due to inability of repayment of loan he has raised false allegations against these Respondents and filed this false case. The correct facts are that on 09-11-06 the said tractor was inspected by MRF Tyre Company Officials and report given that there is no disk, hitch and tyre problems. Even after the said report this Respondent No-1 has changed the disk hitch and tyre on goodwill purpose. The complainant by using leaning of the Respondent NO-1 raised false allegations and issued letter to Respondent No-1 on 17-11-06. Though after receiving the letter this Respondent No-1 inspected the engine and found no defects in the tractor. Several times the Respondent No-1 informed through phone to the complainant to take tractor but the complainant has not taken his tractor. Later Respondent NO-1 issued a letter to the complainant on 06-01-07 to take his tractor. There is no manufacturing defect in the tractor and so there is no deficiency in service by the Respondents. The complainant is holding only 3 acres and 3 guntas dry land in Hunagunti village of Lingasugur Tq. and so he is hiring his tractor for agriculture purpose. The complainant to avoid the payment of loan availed by him from Sri. Ram Finance has filed this false complaint to shift his burden and liability of debt on the Respondent. The Sri Ram Finance and MRF Tyre Company are necessary parties. Hence for all these reasons Respondent No-1 has sought for dismissal of the complaint with cost. The contents of written-version of Respondent No-2 is similar to that of Respondent NO-1 so we do not want to repeat the same. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed sworn affidavit-evidence by way of examination-in-chief as PW-1 and has got marked (6) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6. In rebuttal the Respondents have filed sworn affidavit of dealer & proprietor of Respondent No-1 by way of examination-in-chief as RW-1 and sworn-affidavit of Regional Marketing Manager of Respondent No-2 by way of examination-in-chief as RW-2 and have got marked (7) documents at Ex.R-1 to R-7. 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1.Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents, as alleged.? 2.Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1.In the negative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. There is no dispute that the complainant had purchased the tractor bearing No. KA-36 TA-3417 from Respondent No-1, Manufactured by Respondent No-2. It is the case of the complainant that he is an agriculturist owning lands and he purchased the said tractor for his agriculture purpose in the month of March 2006 by raising loan from Sri. Ram Finance. It is his further case that within two months of purchase, there was trouble in the Engine of the tractor, dicks, itch and tyre etc., and the tractor used to jump on the road and consuming more diesel and that the engine used to become very heat and buttons of big tyres of tractor are spoiled and so he could not carry-out agricultural work properly. Therefore in the month of October-2006 time and again he visited the Shown-room of Respondent No-1 and requested to attend the manufacturing defects and other defects of the tractor. But the Respondent No-1 gave his deaf ears, therefore he left his tractor in the show-room of Respondent No-1. After few days Respondent No-1 attended only minor repairs without attending major defects and requested the complainant to take back the tractor. Making it believe that the tractor was all right. Believing on the words of Respondent No-1, he took his tractor but within a week again he noticed the said defects and could not utilize the tractor. So immediately in the month of November-2006 he again went to the show-room of Respondent No-1 and left his tractor and also a wrote a letter to Respondent No-2 with a request to attend the defects immediately. In-spite of lapse of four months the Respondents did not attend the defects nor intimated anything to him, therefore on 05-01-07 he wrote a letter to the Respondent No-1 in the matter. On the very next day i.e, on 06-01-07 the Respondent No.1 wrote a letter to the complainant stating that there was no manufacturing defects and requested him to take delivery of the said tractor. Immediately thereafter he went to the shop of Respondent No-1 and examined the tractor but it was in the same condition as it was earlier. So he came back without taking delivery of the tractor. But the Respondents have denied all these allegations. 7. The complainant has produced (6) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-6. Ex.P-1 is the Photo-stat copy of R.C. Book of the tractor. Ex.P-2 is the Photo copy of Warranty letter showing the Warranty period of two years from 07-03-06 or 2500 hours which ever is earlier. Ex.P-3 is the letter dt. 15-11-06 of the complainant addressed to the Manager Sri. Ram Finance requesting for stoppage of loan installments etc., and this letter shows acknowledgement receipt of Sri Ram Finance Transport Finance Company. Ex.P-4 is the Xerox copy of letter dt. 17-11-06 of the complainant addressed to the Manager Eicher Tractor Company Bangalore (Respondent No-2). Ex.P-5 is the Xerox copy of letter dt. 05-01-07 of complainant the address of the addressee is not visible. Ex.P-6 is the letter of Respondent No-1 Balaji Automobiles dt. 06-01-07 addressed to the complainant. 8. The Respondents have produced (7) documents at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-7. Ex.R-1 is the Pass Sheet (Repayment schedule) issued by Sri. Ram Finance regarding the loan obtained by complainant. Ex.R-2 is the Report issued by MRF Tyre Company Officer dt. 09-11-06. Ex.R-3 is the Land Holding Certificate of the complainant issued by Tahasildar Lingasugur dt. 23-07-07. Ex.R-4 is the Land Holding Certificate of surety i.e, brother of the complainant issued by Tahasildar Lingasugur dt. 23-07-07. Ex.R-5 is the Record of Rights for the year 2006-07 in-respect of land Sy.No. 8 held by complainant containing the pages 1 to 7. Ex.R-6 is the Record of Rights of the land Sy.No.89/2 of surety for the year 2006-07 in-respect of land Sy.No. 89/2 held by surety-brother of the complainant. Ex.R-7 is the Xerox copy of Special Power of Attorney dt. 19-03-07 in favour of T. Ramesh Regional Manager Marketing of Respondent No-2. 9. Ex.P-6, the letter of Respondent No-1 dt. 06-01-07 goes to show that it is a reply to the letter of the complainant dt. 05-01-07. In this letter it is stated that dicks, Hitch and tyres of the tractor bearing No. KA-36 TA 3417 have already been changed and on examination, the tractor has no manufacturing defect and it is in-good condition and that in-spite of this fact having been informed with a request to take back the tractor, complainant has not taken the delivery of the tractor, so it is once again requested to take delivery of the tractor. 10) What ever may be the dispute regarding manufacturing defect of the tractor and the complainant leaving the said tractor in the show-room of the Respondent No-1, but the reply letter of the Respondent No-1 dt. 06-01-07 at Ex.P-6 states that dicks, itch and tyre have already been changed and the tractor is in good-condition without having any manufacturing defect and once again requested the complainant to take delivery of the tractor. On the contrary the complainant alleges that in response to said letter when he went to the shop of Respondent No-1, he found the tractor in the same condition as it was earlier. So according to him the tractor was not at all repaired and the tractor is having manufacturing defects. Except his interested testimony (his affidavit-evidence) there is no cogent and convincing material to substantiate his version that the vehicle was tested by an Expert. So to say no steps were taken to land the vehicle/tractor for laboratory test. Hence the complainant could not be said to have proved that the vehicle suffered from any manufacturing defect. This our view is supported by the decision of Honble State Commission Pondicherry reported in CPR 2007(1) Page No-1 Head Note interlia which reads as under: ------------------------------------------------------------------No steps were taken to land the vehicle for laboratory test__ Complainant could not be said to have proved that vehicle suffered from any manufacturing defect__ No reason to interfere with other dismissing complaint. 10. The Respondents have contended that on 09-11-06 the tractor in-question was inspected by the MRF Tyres official and found that there is no manufacturing defect in the tyre but it was found damaged due to ALW (Alternative Lug Wear) resulted from un-even contact pressure at tyre/road contact area due to excessive load transfer from trailer and that the tyre was left with 18mm NSD i.e, 47% of the tread life is still left. There was no manufacturing defect in the tyre. However they (Respondent No-1) changed the dicks, hitch and two tyre for the good-will of their business. To substantiate this the Respondents have produced Inspection Report of MRF Tyre Company at Ex.R-2. This Report is in the shape of letter dt. 09-11-06 addressed to the complainant and copy of which is marked to Respondent No.1. This letter Ex.R-2 interalia shows that MRF Company Tyre Technician inspected the tyre of the tractor in-question and found that the tyre is damaged due to ALW (Alternative Lug Wear) resulted from un-even contact pressure at tyre/road contact area due to excessive load transfer from trailer and the tyre was left with 18mm NSD i.e, 47% of the tread life is still left. As this is not due to any manufacturing defect the Warranty claim is not acceptable. If this letter ExR-2 is read along with the reply letter of the Respondent at Ex.P-6 dt. 06-01-07, it supports the contention of the Respondents that they have changed the dicks, hitch and tyre and that the tractor had no manufacturing defect and it is in good condition and they have requested the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle. If this is so the contention of the complainant that when he went to the shop of Respondent No-1 in response to letter at Ex.P-6 he found the tractor was in same condition as it was earlier, is not reasonable to accept in the absence of Experts opinion. If according to the complainant the tractor was in the same condition as it was earlier and the letter of the Respondent at Ex.P-6 is false one, then in the natural course of conduct the complainant would not have kept mum to get the tractor tested by an Expert or even he would not have hesitated to move this Forum for examination of the tractor by an expert at the time of filing of his complaint to show that the alleged manufacturing defect in the tractor having not been attended by the Respondents. In the absence of the same we do not find any substance in the contention of the complainant. So in this background the contention of the Respondents that the complainant is trying to shift his burden and liability of repayment of tractor loan on the Respondents cannot be brushed aside. 11. When the complainant has failed to prove the manufacturing defect of his tractor by cogent and convincing material as discussed supra, the other contention of the Respondents that the complainant holding only 3 acres and 3 gutnas of loan and his utilizing the tractor for commercial purpose by hiring it needs no consideration especially when the Respondents have not substantiated the hiring of the tractor by the complainant as alleged. Hence for all these reasons we hold that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service by the Respondents as alleged. So Point No-1 is answered in the negative. POINT NO.2:- 12. In view of our discussion and finding on Point No-1, the complainant is not entitled for reliefs sought for. So Point No-2 is answered in the negative. In the result we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 23-11-07) Sd/- on leave Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. GururajSri. N.H. Savalagi, Member. Member. President, Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.

This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Hanumanthappa against the two Respondents (1) The Balaji Automobiles- Authorized Dealers for Eicher Tractors Sindhanoor, and (2) The Eicher Tractors (Unit of TAFE Motors and Tractors Ltd.,) Shivanda Circle- Bangalore. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The complainant is an agriculturist having agricultural establishment at Hunkunti village. He purchased a tractor bearing No. KA-36 TA 3417 from Respondent NO-1 manufactured by Respondent NO-2 for Rs. 4,00,000/- by raising loan from Sri. Ram Finance Sindhanoor in the month of March-2006. Within two months of purchase there was trouble in the Engine of the tractor, dicks, itch and tyre etc., When the vehicle was on the road it used to jump and consuming more diesel and the engine used to become very heat and buttons of big tyres are spoiled. Therefore the complainant was not able to carry-out his agricultural work properly. In the month of October-2006 he visited the show-room of the Respondent NO-1 and requested to attend the manufacturing defects and other defects of the tractor sold to him. The Respondent NO-1 gave his deaf ears therefore he left his tractor in his show-room. The Respondent NO-1 after few days attended only minor repairs without attending the major defects and requested the complainant to take the tractor stating that the tractor was all right. Having believed the words of the Respondent No-1 the complainant took his tractor. But within a week again he noticed the defects cited above and the complainant was not in a position to utilize the tractors for his agricultural operation. Immediately in the month of November-2006 he again went to the Respondent NO-1s show-room and left his tractor in his show-room and wrote a letter to Respondent No-2 intimating the defects in the tractor sold to him and requested to attend the defects immediately. But the Respondent NO- 1 & 2 have not attended the defects of tractor though the tractor is in their possession for about (4) months and even they have not intimated anything to the complainant. Therefore on 05-01-07 he wrote a letter to the Respondent No-1 stating that though (4) months have lost they have not attended the defects in the tractor and he is suffering due to purchase of such defective tractor from Respondents. Surpassingly on the next day i.e, 06-01-07 the Respondent No-1 wrote a letter to the complainant stating that there was no any manufacturing defects and requested to take delivery of the tractor from Respondent NO-1. He immediately went to the shop of Respondent No-1 and examined the tractor but it was in the same condition as it was earlier. Therefore he came back without taking the delivery of the tractor. The Respondent No-1 while selling the tractor to the complainant had given a Warranty Card disclosing the warranty period for (2) years or 2500 hours which ever is earlier. The complaint made by the complainant regarding the defects in the tractor are with in the period of Warranty. However the Respondents have not cared for clauses of their own-warranty-card. Hence there is deficiency of service in supplying defective tractor and also not attending the defects within a reasonable period and keeping the tractor for long period with them. The Respondents have also not cared to reply to the letters frequently written by him. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to the Respondents to replace the tractor of similar discriptions which shall be free from any defects or to return the price paid with interest and also to pay damages of Rs. 2,00,000/- sustained by the complainant due to negligence of the Respondents. 2. The Respondents 1 & 2 appeared through counsel and both have filed separate written version. In the written version Respondent No-1 has contended that the Officer of MRF Tyre Company inspected and given report that there is no manufacturing defect in MRF tyre but it was damaged due to ALW (Alternative Lug Wear) resulted from un-even contact pressure at tyre/road contact area due to excessive load transfer from trailer. The warranty claim on the same is not acceptable. At the time of Inspection tyre was left with 18mm NSD i.e, 47% of the tread life is still left. There is no Engine defect and disk defect. The mechanics and engineers of the Respondents have inspected the tractor of the complainant and further they have changed the disk, hitch and two tyre on goodwill of the business. Further the Respondent NO-1 informed through letter but the complainant has not taken the tractor in-question. The complainant has availed the loan from Sri.Ram Chits Finance and due to inability of repayment of loan he has raised false allegations against these Respondents and filed this false case. The correct facts are that on 09-11-06 the said tractor was inspected by MRF Tyre Company Officials and report given that there is no disk, hitch and tyre problems. Even after the said report this Respondent No-1 has changed the disk hitch and tyre on goodwill purpose. The complainant by using leaning of the Respondent NO-1 raised false allegations and issued letter to Respondent No-1 on 17-11-06. Though after receiving the letter this Respondent No-1 inspected the engine and found no defects in the tractor. Several times the Respondent No-1 informed through phone to the complainant to take tractor but the complainant has not taken his tractor. Later Respondent NO-1 issued a letter to the complainant on 06-01-07 to take his tractor. There is no manufacturing defect in the tractor and so there is no deficiency in service by the Respondents. The complainant is holding only 3 acres and 3 guntas dry land in Hunagunti village of Lingasugur Tq. and so he is hiring his tractor for agriculture purpose. The complainant to avoid the payment of loan availed by him from Sri. Ram Finance has filed this false complaint to shift his burden and liability of debt on the Respondent. The Sri Ram Finance and MRF Tyre Company are necessary parties. Hence for all these reasons Respondent No-1 has sought for dismissal of the complaint with cost. The contents of written-version of Respondent No-2 is similar to that of Respondent NO-1 so we do not want to repeat the same. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed sworn affidavit-evidence by way of examination-in-chief as PW-1 and has got marked (6) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6. In rebuttal the Respondents have filed sworn affidavit of dealer & proprietor of Respondent No-1 by way of examination-in-chief as RW-1 and sworn-affidavit of Regional Marketing Manager of Respondent No-2 by way of examination-in-chief as RW-2 and have got marked (7) documents at Ex.R-1 to R-7. 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1.Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents, as alleged.? 2.Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1.In the negative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. There is no dispute that the complainant had purchased the tractor bearing No. KA-36 TA-3417 from Respondent No-1, Manufactured by Respondent No-2. It is the case of the complainant that he is an agriculturist owning lands and he purchased the said tractor for his agriculture purpose in the month of March 2006 by raising loan from Sri. Ram Finance. It is his further case that within two months of purchase, there was trouble in the Engine of the tractor, dicks, itch and tyre etc., and the tractor used to jump on the road and consuming more diesel and that the engine used to become very heat and buttons of big tyres of tractor are spoiled and so he could not carry-out agricultural work properly. Therefore in the month of October-2006 time and again he visited the Shown-room of Respondent No-1 and requested to attend the manufacturing defects and other defects of the tractor. But the Respondent No-1 gave his deaf ears, therefore he left his tractor in the show-room of Respondent No-1. After few days Respondent No-1 attended only minor repairs without attending major defects and requested the complainant to take back the tractor. Making it believe that the tractor was all right. Believing on the words of Respondent No-1, he took his tractor but within a week again he noticed the said defects and could not utilize the tractor. So immediately in the month of November-2006 he again went to the show-room of Respondent No-1 and left his tractor and also a wrote a letter to Respondent No-2 with a request to attend the defects immediately. In-spite of lapse of four months the Respondents did not attend the defects nor intimated anything to him, therefore on 05-01-07 he wrote a letter to the Respondent No-1 in the matter. On the very next day i.e, on 06-01-07 the Respondent No.1 wrote a letter to the complainant stating that there was no manufacturing defects and requested him to take delivery of the said tractor. Immediately thereafter he went to the shop of Respondent No-1 and examined the tractor but it was in the same condition as it was earlier. So he came back without taking delivery of the tractor. But the Respondents have denied all these allegations. 7. The complainant has produced (6) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-6. Ex.P-1 is the Photo-stat copy of R.C. Book of the tractor. Ex.P-2 is the Photo copy of Warranty letter showing the Warranty period of two years from 07-03-06 or 2500 hours which ever is earlier. Ex.P-3 is the letter dt. 15-11-06 of the complainant addressed to the Manager Sri. Ram Finance requesting for stoppage of loan installments etc., and this letter shows acknowledgement receipt of Sri Ram Finance Transport Finance Company. Ex.P-4 is the Xerox copy of letter dt. 17-11-06 of the complainant addressed to the Manager Eicher Tractor Company Bangalore (Respondent No-2). Ex.P-5 is the Xerox copy of letter dt. 05-01-07 of complainant the address of the addressee is not visible. Ex.P-6 is the letter of Respondent No-1 Balaji Automobiles dt. 06-01-07 addressed to the complainant. 8. The Respondents have produced (7) documents at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-7. Ex.R-1 is the Pass Sheet (Repayment schedule) issued by Sri. Ram Finance regarding the loan obtained by complainant. Ex.R-2 is the Report issued by MRF Tyre Company Officer dt. 09-11-06. Ex.R-3 is the Land Holding Certificate of the complainant issued by Tahasildar Lingasugur dt. 23-07-07. Ex.R-4 is the Land Holding Certificate of surety i.e, brother of the complainant issued by Tahasildar Lingasugur dt. 23-07-07. Ex.R-5 is the Record of Rights for the year 2006-07 in-respect of land Sy.No. 8 held by complainant containing the pages 1 to 7. Ex.R-6 is the Record of Rights of the land Sy.No.89/2 of surety for the year 2006-07 in-respect of land Sy.No. 89/2 held by surety-brother of the complainant. Ex.R-7 is the Xerox copy of Special Power of Attorney dt. 19-03-07 in favour of T. Ramesh Regional Manager Marketing of Respondent No-2. 9. Ex.P-6, the letter of Respondent No-1 dt. 06-01-07 goes to show that it is a reply to the letter of the complainant dt. 05-01-07. In this letter it is stated that dicks, Hitch and tyres of the tractor bearing No. KA-36 TA 3417 have already been changed and on examination, the tractor has no manufacturing defect and it is in-good condition and that in-spite of this fact having been informed with a request to take back the tractor, complainant has not taken the delivery of the tractor, so it is once again requested to take delivery of the tractor. 10) What ever may be the dispute regarding manufacturing defect of the tractor and the complainant leaving the said tractor in the show-room of the Respondent No-1, but the reply letter of the Respondent No-1 dt. 06-01-07 at Ex.P-6 states that dicks, itch and tyre have already been changed and the tractor is in good-condition without having any manufacturing defect and once again requested the complainant to take delivery of the tractor. On the contrary the complainant alleges that in response to said letter when he went to the shop of Respondent No-1, he found the tractor in the same condition as it was earlier. So according to him the tractor was not at all repaired and the tractor is having manufacturing defects. Except his interested testimony (his affidavit-evidence) there is no cogent and convincing material to substantiate his version that the vehicle was tested by an Expert. So to say no steps were taken to land the vehicle/tractor for laboratory test. Hence the complainant could not be said to have proved that the vehicle suffered from any manufacturing defect. This our view is supported by the decision of Honble State Commission Pondicherry reported in CPR 2007(1) Page No-1 Head Note interlia which reads as under: ------------------------------------------------------------------No steps were taken to land the vehicle for laboratory test__ Complainant could not be said to have proved that vehicle suffered from any manufacturing defect__ No reason to interfere with other dismissing complaint. 10. The Respondents have contended that on 09-11-06 the tractor in-question was inspected by the MRF Tyres official and found that there is no manufacturing defect in the tyre but it was found damaged due to ALW (Alternative Lug Wear) resulted from un-even contact pressure at tyre/road contact area due to excessive load transfer from trailer and that the tyre was left with 18mm NSD i.e, 47% of the tread life is still left. There was no manufacturing defect in the tyre. However they (Respondent No-1) changed the dicks, hitch and two tyre for the good-will of their business. To substantiate this the Respondents have produced Inspection Report of MRF Tyre Company at Ex.R-2. This Report is in the shape of letter dt. 09-11-06 addressed to the complainant and copy of which is marked to Respondent No.1. This letter Ex.R-2 interalia shows that MRF Company Tyre Technician inspected the tyre of the tractor in-question and found that the tyre is damaged due to ALW (Alternative Lug Wear) resulted from un-even contact pressure at tyre/road contact area due to excessive load transfer from trailer and the tyre was left with 18mm NSD i.e, 47% of the tread life is still left. As this is not due to any manufacturing defect the Warranty claim is not acceptable. If this letter ExR-2 is read along with the reply letter of the Respondent at Ex.P-6 dt. 06-01-07, it supports the contention of the Respondents that they have changed the dicks, hitch and tyre and that the tractor had no manufacturing defect and it is in good condition and they have requested the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle. If this is so the contention of the complainant that when he went to the shop of Respondent No-1 in response to letter at Ex.P-6 he found the tractor was in same condition as it was earlier, is not reasonable to accept in the absence of Experts opinion. If according to the complainant the tractor was in the same condition as it was earlier and the letter of the Respondent at Ex.P-6 is false one, then in the natural course of conduct the complainant would not have kept mum to get the tractor tested by an Expert or even he would not have hesitated to move this Forum for examination of the tractor by an expert at the time of filing of his complaint to show that the alleged manufacturing defect in the tractor having not been attended by the Respondents. In the absence of the same we do not find any substance in the contention of the complainant. So in this background the contention of the Respondents that the complainant is trying to shift his burden and liability of repayment of tractor loan on the Respondents cannot be brushed aside. 11. When the complainant has failed to prove the manufacturing defect of his tractor by cogent and convincing material as discussed supra, the other contention of the Respondents that the complainant holding only 3 acres and 3 gutnas of loan and his utilizing the tractor for commercial purpose by hiring it needs no consideration especially when the Respondents have not substantiated the hiring of the tractor by the complainant as alleged. Hence for all these reasons we hold that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service by the Respondents as alleged. So Point No-1 is answered in the negative. POINT NO.2:- 12. In view of our discussion and finding on Point No-1, the complainant is not entitled for reliefs sought for. So Point No-2 is answered in the negative. In the result we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 23-11-07) Sd/- on leave Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. GururajSri. N.H. Savalagi, Member. Member. President, Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.