BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 175 of 2015.                                                                       

                                                          Date of Institution         :    8.10.2015

                                                          Date of Decision   :    27.2.2017

Navdeep aged 29 years son of Shri Shankar Lal, resident of village Joranwali, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. Elina Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Auto Market, Sirsa, through its Director/ Manager.

2. Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd., Regd. Off: 861, Anna Salai Chennai- 600 002, through its Manager.

3. Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd., Secorico House, Plot No.4, No.14/3, Mathura Road, Faridabad- 121 003 (Hr.), through its Manager. 

                                                              ...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT

                 SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL………..……MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. Rakesh Pareek,  Advocate for the complainant.

       Sh. Sandeep Chaudhary, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.

       Sh. Deepesh Goyal, Advocate for opposite parties No.2 & 3.                  

                   ORDER

                    Initially the complainant filed the present complaint against Chanana Automobiles, Hisar road Sirsa i.e. opposite party no.1 and against others but thereafter amended title impleading Elina Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Auto Market, Sirsa as op no.1 in place of Chanana Automobiles has been filed.

2.                Case of the complainant, in brief, is that complainant had purchased one new Messy Ferguson 7250-DI tractor bearing engine No.5325F54059, chassis No.993212 from opposite party no.1 on 24.7.2014 for sale price of Rs.5,50,000/- and same was got registered. At the time of sale of said tractor, the op no.1 had given two years full guarantee and warranty from the date of purchase of tractor. However, from the very beginning, the said tractor mal-functioned as the lift of the tractor did not work. The complainant on noticing the said defect in the tractor reported the same to op no.1 whereupon op no.1 got checked the tractor from its Engineer/ Mechanic who reported that the main seal of the tractor is defective, due to which there is leakage which has reduced the power of lift and thus the lift of tractor is not working. It was also observed that gear box of the tractor is also defective. The op no.1 got repaired the tractor but even then the same did not work. The complainant brought the tractor to the workshop of op no.1 about 30 times with above complaint but even the op no.1 could not remove the defect in the tractor. The complainant also lodged a complaint with ops No.2 & 3 on toll free number 18004259797 and also talked with the Service Engineer of the company on his mobile and reported the above defect in the tractor but even then the grievance of complainant was not redressed. The said tractor is still in defective condition. Hence, this complaint for a direction to the ops either to replace the above defective tractor with a new one or to refund its price alongwith interest and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment and also to pay litigation expenses.

3.                On notice, opposite party no.1 i.e. Elina Automobiles appeared through counsel and replied that the complainant has not filed any expert report in support of his complaint. In absence of any expert’s report in support of claim of complainant regarding leakage of main oil seal from the tractor, the liability of incident cannot be fastened on the answering op merely on the basis of false and vague allegations of complainant. In the absence of any expert report and findings based on scientific and technical basis, it cannot be proved that any leakage in main oil seal was there or any defect was there in the tractor. The complainant has drawn the inference that the main seal of tractor is defective on his own presumption. It is very much necessary for a consumer to take appropriate steps for taking care and operating smoothly the machinery/ tractor by way of serving necessary engine parts timely as functioning depends upon using good quality oils and other parts and apart from it, there are many other reasons like mishandling of tractor by human being. In the present case the above reasons are highly applicable. After purchase of tractor, the same was brought for service on many occasions for normal complaint/ free service as per schedule and job cards were also got prepared by answering op on such dates, but complainant never complained about oil leakage from main seal. On the request of complainant, sometimes free services were also provided to the complainant at his fields by the mechanics and engineers of answering op and op no.2. The complainant for the first time complained about leakage of main oil seal only on 9.6.2015 at the workshop of op which was duly attended but no leakage was found and even then as per forcible insistence of complainant, main oil seal was changed by answering op. It is wrong to allege that there was any complaint in gear box. Even thereafter complainant again and again made call on toll free number of company as well as on contact number of service engineer for the same complaint and on his such complaints, service engineer namely Pradeep Kumar Sharma specially visited Sirsa on 28.7.2015 for checking of his tractor and this time too, no complaint of leakage was found by him. However, service engineer keeping in view the adamant behavior of complainant in his presence got changed the main oil leakage seals as well as other costly parts from the mechanic of answering op just for the satisfaction of complainant. It is further submitted that even after 28.7.2015, service engineer again got checked the tractor on 12.8.2015 and found that there was no leakage in oil seal and other parts but only diesel tank was required to be cleaned due to water mix diesel used and due particles found on diesel filter which can harm diesel pump and tractor performance. Other routine services and steps were also taken by answering op time to time. On 12.5.2016, complainant lastly visited to the workshop of answering op and was fully satisfied. The tractor in question has no defect in it and all the grievances/ complaints of the complainant were duly attended by answering op time and again.

4.                Opposite party no.2 in its separate written statement/ reply resisted the complaint on similar lines as that of op no.1. No separate written statement on behalf of op no.3 was filed. Ld. counsel for op no.3 made a statement that written statement filed on behalf of op no.2 be also read on behalf of op no.3.

5.                By way of evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of certificate of registration Ex.C2, copy of coupon for first service Ex.C3, copy of warranty card Ex.C4. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit of Sh. Pardeep Sharma, Service Engineer Ex.RW1/A, affidavit of Sh. Nitin Sethi Ex.RW2/B, authorization letter Ex.R1, copy of writing of Brij Lal Ex.R2, copies of job cards Ex.R3 to Ex.R11 and copy of customer satisfaction note Ex.R12.

6.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

7.                The complainant has alleged that from the very beginning of purchase of tractor in question, the same developed defect and the lift of the tractor did not work and the gear box of the tractor is also defective. He has further alleged that said tractor has manufacturing defect and same cannot be removed by way of repairs. However, there is nothing on file to prove any manufacturing defect in the tractor in question. Normal wear and tear in the tractor cannot be said to be manufacturing defect. The tractor in question was purchased by complainant on 22.7.2014 and for the first time he narrated the problem of main seal leakage only on 9.6.2015 as is evident from copy of job card Ex.R8 and at that time oil seal was changed under warranty. According to the ops, on 28.7.2015 also keeping in view the adamant behavior of complainant they got changed the main oil leakage seals although no complaint of leakage was found by their service engineer. On 12.8.2015 diesel tank was cleaned and diesel filter was changed as is evident from copy of job card dated 12.8.2015 Ex.R10. Then in the job  card dated 12.5.2016, the complainant raised the problem of lift automatic down and at that time safety valve and control valve were replaced and tractor working was found well. In this regard the complainant also signed customer satisfaction note, copy of which has been placed on file as Ex.R12. The complainant has not placed on file any expert opinion to prove that above said defects occurred due to manufacturing defect in the tractor. As the complainant was given two years warranty, he is entitled to repair of the tractor in question but not entitled to any replacement of tractor or refund of price as it is not proved on record that tractor in question is having any manufacturing defect.

8.                Keeping in view of our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to repair the tractor in question and to make it defect free after replacement of defective parts, if any free of costs. The complainant will have to take the tractor in question to the ops and all the ops jointly and severally will make the tractor defect free within one month of production of tractor by the complainant to them. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room. 

Announced in open Forum.                                 President,

Dated:27.2.2017.                  Member.             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                          Redressal Forum, Sirsa.