BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.55 of 2018
Date of Institution : 05.02.2018
Date of Decision : 26.09.2019.
Surjeet Singh son of Shri Saudagar Singh, resident of village Mallekaqn, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Channa Automobiles, Sirsa through its Manager, Hisar Road, Sirsa.
- Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Sawarj Division, Plot No.725, Near Trident hotel, Gurgaon. 2nd address:- Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Sawarj Division, Phase-IV, Industrial Area, SAS Nagar (Mohali) Punjab- 160055 through its Proprietor/ Authorized person.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA………………………..PRESIDENT
SHRI ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL…………MEMBER
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………….……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Vinod Kamboj, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The case of complainant in brief is that opposite party no.1 is the authorized dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra Sawraj Tractors and hence the complainant approached the op no.1 and desired for the purchase of New Mahindra Tractor 744. Thereafter, he purchased the tractor from op no.1 on payment of cash amount by getting finance facility and op no.1 had given one year full guarantee/ warranty against all kind of manufacturing defect in the tractor. Thereafter, the said vehicle was registered with Registering Authority vide registration No. HR-24T/4035. It is further averred that complainant used/ plied the said vehicle very smoothly, but the complainant was shocked to find that within the guarantee period of said tractor, the rear side barring of the tractor was broken due to which shaft and grari of the tractor also broken and this has been happened only due to manufacturing defect in the said tractor. The complainant approached the ops and complained about the defects in the said tractor. The op no.1 did the repair work on tractor and also replaced the broken parts with new one and thereafter the tractor was handed over to him with an assurance that now the tractor is quite okay and that damaged parts have been replaced with original parts of the company and also assured that now for the next five years, there would be no problem in the said tractor. It is further averred that even after the repair of the tractor and replacement of said parts, the tractor again suffered damages and said shaft, grari have been broken again and when complainant again approached op no.1 and complained about the same defects, the op no.1 openly refused to hear the request of complainant. It is further averred that thereafter, complainant got checked the said tractor from some private Mechanic and he was shocked to know that op no.1 while doing the repair work/ replacement of damaged parts, the ops have committed cheating with complainant as the ops have willfully and out of their fraudulent intention placed/ inserted the old / defected parts in the said tractor. The complainant incurred a huge amount of Rs.30,000/- on the repair work of the tractor. The ops have caused deficiency and unfair trade practice to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections that complaint is neither maintainable nor sustainable in the present form, that complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties, that complaint is hopelessly time barred as the tractor in question has been purchased by complainant vide sale invoice dated 21.3.2014 and even according to own admission by complainant, there was only one year warranty of the limited parts subject to the conditions laid down by the company, but the complainant out of his own oblique motive has filed the present complaint after lapse of more than 4½ years that too without description of any documentary proof of the recurring cause of action to the complainant for filing the complaint, that complainant has concealed and suppressed the true and material facts from the Forum, that as per Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has to prove his case with some cogent evidence about the allegations but in this complaint nothing has been filed, so the allegations are baseless and without any substantiation of its correctness, that it seems that complainant had not read the booklet called owners manual given to the complainant and this booklet contains all the do and don’s of the vehicle for its better use and for getting best performance alongwith the terms and conditions and scope of warranty and has not complied with the same. It is further submitted that performance of any automobile vehicle generally depends on various external factors i.e. the number of start and stops to the vehicle, the load carried on the vehicle, the road conditions, the tyres pressures, the purity of the fuel, the maintenance of the vehicle and driving habits of the rider etc. On merits, it is submitted that it is wrong that there was any kind of manufacturing defect in the said tractor as the fact remains that the complainant get the services on the tractor time to time from op no.1 and every time the service was done as per satisfaction of complainant. It is wrong that on the complaint by complainant, op no.1 did the repair work on the said tractor and also replaced the broken parts with new one, rather it is submitted that every time routine service was done on the tractor and the story in this regard is concocted one. The op no.1 has sold out the tractor on nominal margin. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Op no.2 filed reply submitting therein that complaint is hopelessly time barred. The complainant purchased the tractor on 21.3.2014 and therefore, cause of action to file the complaint started from 21.3.2014. The complainant had limitation to file this complaint within two years from the date of purchase i.e. till 20.3.2016. However, complaint has been filed on 2.4.2019 even after limitation of two years. The complainant has not intentionally mentioned the date of purchase of tractor anywhere in the complaint. It is further submitted that complainant has not annexed report of any independent expert as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or any other documents to substantiate the alleged defects. On merits, the contents of the complaint are denied to be wrong. It is submitted that it is altogether wrong that the tractor is having any manufacturing defect and started to create problems within the warranty period as alleged. Moreover, the complainant has not stated anywhere date and time when he faced problem in the tractor during warranty period. It is further submitted that he brought his tractor at the service centre on 24.4.2014 after completing 54 hours, on 21.7.2014 after completing 273 hours, on 13.4.2015 after completing 541 hours, 15.2.2016 after completing 896 hours and on 15.10.2016 after completing 1160 hours for free paid services. During these services, the complainant never informed any complaint in the tractor as alleged. All other contents of the complaint are also denied.
4. The parties then led their respective evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for complainant has contended that it is prved case of complainant that complainant had purchased a Mahindra tractor 744 from op no.1 which was got registered with registration number HR-24T/4035 and same was manufactured by op no.2. The complainant used to get periodical services from op no.1. As the rear side barring of the tractor was broken and shaft and grari of the tractor also broken within warranty period, the op no.1 being the authorized dealer/workshop of manufacturing company did the repair work on the tractor and also replaced the broken parts with new one and thereafter tractor was handed over to the complainant with an assurance that now the tractor is quite okay and defect free, but however, said tractor again suffered the damages and said shaft, grari have been broken again and when complainant approached op no.1 again, they refused to hear the request of the complainant. The complainant got checked said tractor from some Mechanic outside the agency who told that while doing the repair work, the op no.1 committed cheating upon the complainant as the ops have willfully and out of their fraudulent intention placed/ inserted the old parts/defected parts in the said tractor and delivered the tractor to the complainant by making false assurance. He has incurred huge amount of Rs.30,000/- on repair of the tractor. There is manufacturing defect in the vehicle and complainant is entitled for refund of this amount and replacement of the tractor.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops has contended that complainant had been getting regular periodical services from ops time to time though tractor was purchased on 21.3.2014. There was no any manufacturing defect in the tractor during this period and thereafter complainant did not come to ops for service or repair. It is false story that old parts have been replaced and inserted in the tractor. The complainant wants to grab some money from op no.1 by putting false claim of replacement of old parts. Learned counsel for ops has further contended that complainant has not placed on record any document from which it could be presumed that tractor suffered from any manufacturing defect, as such op no.2 is not liable to for any replacement of the vehicle being manufacturer of the vehicle and has relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Classic Automobiles vs. Lila Nand Mishra and anr. 2010 (1) CPJ 235.
8. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the record as well as judgment relied upon by learned counsel for ops carefully.
9. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A wherein he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also furnished affidavit of Sh. Gurnam Singh Mechanic of village Mallekan Ex.CW2/A and documents i.e. copy of legal notice Ex.C2, postal receipt Ex.C2, copy of certificate of registration Ex.C3, copy of loan document Ex.C4, copy of estimate Ex.C5. On the other hand, ops have furnished affidavit of Sh. Laxman Dass Chanana Manager Ex.RW1/A, affidavit of Sh, Amit Kumar Raghav, Senior Manager Ex.RW2/A and documents i.e. copy of invoice Ex.R1, copy of history card Ex.R2 and copy of warranty policy Ex.R3.
10. It is an admitted fact that complainant had purchased a Mahindra tractor 744 from opposite party no.1 on 21.3.2014 against payment with a warrantee of one year, which is evident from copy of bill Ex.R1. The complainant has placed on record only legal notice dated 11.10.2017, copy of RC, postal receipt and bank loan statement and estimate. As per allegations of complainant after few months of the purchase of tractor, there was a defect in the gear box of the tractor and he approached op no.1 who replaced some old parts in the vehicle as a result of which again there was same problem in the tractor and he approached some other workshop, the mechanic of which told that op no.1 replaced old parts in his vehicle and moreover there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The complainant in order to prove this plea has relied upon affidavit of Sh. Gurnam Singh, Mechanic and has also placed reliance on Ex.C5 which is estimate of Super Magnum Auto Electrical Equipments but it cannot be presumed as invoice nor it bears signatures of any person. The complainant has not placed on record any expert opinion in order to prove the fact that vehicle of complainant was suffering from any manufacturing defect after 6/7 months of the purchase of vehicle. Nor the complainant has furnished any affidavit of the expert who ever examined the vehicle of complainant and formed his opinion that vehicle of complainant suffers from some manufacturing defect. So, it appears from the evidence of complainant that complainant has miserably failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence in order to prove manufacturing defect in the tractor.
11. In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member Member President,
Dated:26.09.2019 District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa
