Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/200/2017

K.Ragupathy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Claas India (P) Ltd., Rep by Manager & 4 ors - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

03 Jul 2023

ORDER

                                                                       

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:        THIRU. S. KARUPPIAH,               PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER  

                       THIRU.R. VENKATESAPERUMAL,                                       MEMBER

 

CC.No.200/2017

 

 MONDAY, THE 3^rd  DAY OF JULY 2023.

 

                                                                                                           Date of complaint filed    : 24.5.2017

                                                                                                            Date of order pronounced : 3.7.2023

1.K.Ragupathi,

S/o Kannaiya Nayudu,

No.10A-8^th Main Road,

Lakshmipuram,

Thiruninravur – 602 024

 

Rep.by its Power Agent,

R.Manjula ,

No.10A-8^th Main Road,

Lakshmipuram,

Thiruninravur – 602 024                                            ..Complainant

 

                                           Vs

 

1.Claas India Private Limited,

Rep.by its Manager,

Sector 27-A, Faridabad,

Haryana – 121 003  

 

2. M/s Claas Agricultural Machinery Pvt.Ltd,

Rep.by Manager,

No.487/B, 14^th Cross, 4^th Phase,

Peenya Industrial Area,

Bangaluru – 560 058  

 

3. Claas Agricultural Machinery Pvt.Ltd,

Rep.by Mr.Arun,

Door No. 16, Vinayagar Street,

Royal Garden,

Vazhuthareddy, Villupuram 605 602 

 

4. M/s Vaigai Agri Tech,

Rep.by Manager,

A/1-9, GNT Road, Peravallur,

Ponneri, Thiruvallur District – 601 240

 

5. Vaigai Automotives India Pvt Ltd,

Rep.by Manager,

Near Bharathi College, Thachur post,

Kallakurichi, Tamil Nadu – 606 202                                ..Opposite parties

 

For the Complainant                                          : Mr.K.Ragupathy (PIP)

 

Counsel for the Ops 1 to 3                                 : M/s Nathan Associates

 

Opposite parties 4 & 5                                       : set Exparte (M/s A.Muruganandam)

 

    This complaint is coming on before us for final hearing on 14.6.2023 and on hearing the arguments of both and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:-

ORDER

THIRU. S. KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.    

 

1.The facts ;- 

 

        The case of the complainant is that the 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of making one class agricultural harvesting machine. The 2^nd opposite party is the wholesale dealer of harvesting machine. The 3^rd opposite party is the Service Manager. 4^th and 5^th opposite parties are the authorized service centre and Sales personnel.

 

2.       The complainant on 8.12.2014, purchased a claas agricultural harvesting machine for a sum of Rs.23,40,000/- which was purchased from the complainant’s savings account of Rs.8,40,000 and Rs.15,00,000/- of finance amount received from the Sundaram Finance Ltd. The opposite parties gave an assurance of 1000 hours running on the harvesting machine at the time purchase, but the machine did not function properly from the 1^st date onwards. The 1^st free service was done on 28.2.2015 and when the machine handed over for service, the machine run to about 520 hours, it explode over heat and also consumed oil very much. It was left with the 4^th opposite party (previously Jayalakshmi and Co) . On their advice, it was sent to service station on 11.5.2015,  so the complainant was unable to use the machine. On 16.6.2015 and 28.9.2015, the same complaint was persisted and the opposite party changed the engine on 29.9.2015. Even after changing the engine again, the same complaint of abnormal heat was transmitted and heavy oil was consumed. In spite of the repeated complaints and repairs made by the opposite parties, totally there was more than 138 days, the machine was kept idol. It caused great loss of income, so that the complainant was unable to pay his monthly EMI to the Finance company, subsequently the machine was repossessed by the finance company on 24.2.2017 . So the complainant lost his reputation and loss of income due to the poor machine and poor service of the opposite parties. So the complainant claiming refund of the purchase price of Rs. 23,40,000/- and loss of income, and filed  the complaint.

 

3.       The opposite parties 2 and 3 filed their written version in which they had been stated that the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant purchased the machine  for commercial purpose. The machine was used more than 720 hours which means more than 700 acres were cultivated, it shows that the usage of the machine for commercial. There is no manufacturing defect as alleged and proper services were carried out by the opposite parties. Moreover the complainant improperly used the machine which resulted the repeated defects in the machine. Eventhough, warranty period was over, out of goodwill and gesture, the parts were replaced by the company. Hence there is no deficiency in service and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.       Both sides filed their proof affidavit and documents Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.15 were marked on the side of complainant. Ex.B.1 is marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 to 3. Opposite parties 4 and 5 are set exparte on 11.6.2018.  Both sides filed their written arguments and we heard the arguments of the complainant /party in person as well as the counsel for the opposite parties.

5.       It is the submission of the complainant that within short period from the date of purchase, the machine emitted over heat and consumed oil which was not rectified in spite of repeated repairs. Due to repeated repairs and defects which were not resolved by the opposite parties, the machine was kept idol for more than 100 days which resulted loss of income. Further, the financial company seized the machine and it caused mental agony because of  deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

6.       on the other hand, the counsel for the opposite parties submitted that there is no manufacturing defect and particularly to prove manufacturing defect, no expert report was obtained and further more the complaints made by the complainant were  properly rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant.

7        Now the point for consideration is  :. Whether there is any manufacturing defect and whether the opposite parties committed deficiency in service?

 

 

The Discussion :

9.       As per the admitted facts, the complainant purchased the machine and it is proved from Ex.A.1, purchase invoice.The date of purchase is 8.12.2014 and as per Ex.A.2, VST service job card dated 11.5.2015,  many parts have been changed within the warranty period for which a complaint in writing,  have addressed by the 4^th opposite party to VST Service station on 11.5.2015 ,in which it has been clearly mentioned that the engine temperature was very high. Again as per Ex.A.3 dated 29.9.2015, the engine  (value at Rs.1,99,820/- ) was completely changed.More over after installation of the engine was made ,fuel injection pump was also  replaced. No charge has been received from the complainant because of the warranty period. Ex. A.3 clearly proved many parts of the vehicle has been replaced , particularly engine, fuel pump etc by the authorised service engineers. 

10.     In Ex.A.3, job invoice dated 29.9.2015, again the same complaint was lodged the engine pump has been mentioned by the 4^th opposite party. Likewise in Ex.A.4, dated 17.10.2015, again parts were changed and in the letter it has been mentioned as engine complaint. All the documents , Ex.A.2, A.3, A.4, clearly proved that  within a short span of 10 months,  many parts have been replaced. Though charges were not received from the complainant because of the warranty, it has been replaced, because of the proven defects. So we can presume that the machine was unable to run as per the expectation of the complainant and as per the assurance of the opposite parties. Simply because, the opposite party replaced parts will not absolve them from any liability. Further during the period of repair the complainants were unable to operate the machine and the case of the complainant that they suffered mental agony and finance loss to some extend is clearly proved. So the opposite parties are bound to compensate the innocent customer who purchased the machine. Though it is alleged in the written version that improper use not according to specification it is not proved before us. Further if the above improper use is the reason for repeated repairs, the opposite parties would not have changed parts without any cost even during the warranty period. When the opposite parties failed to prove complainants are, alone responsible for the repairs, then all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.

11.     Though the complainants submitted that because of the repeated defects, they suffered loss of income and unable to pay the amount to finance company,we did not accept that the opposite parties are alone responsible for the said  repossession of the vehicle by the financial company. Whatever be the loss of income from the defected machine, it is the duty of the complainant to pay the loan amount. So suffering due to repossession can not be attributed to opposite parties and they are not liable to compensate or refund the entire machine  sale price amount.

12      Similarly, it is contended by the opposite party that the machine was purchased for commercial purpose, since it cannot be operated by the complainant himself. Further it was contended that the machine run for 720 hours, within a short span of time which means it has been used to harvest more than 700 acre which belongs to others, and so it proved the commercial purpose. But we are unable to subscribe the above arguments. If a person carrying out, in a tractor ,the goods belonged to others

 

can it be described as commercial purpose. Similarly the complainant purchased the machine just to harvest others land, it cannot be for commercial purpose. On seeing the plight of the complainant before us we conclude that they have purchased the machine only to eke out for their livelihood, so the arguments put-forth by the opposite parties were rejected.

13.     Since we already held that the repeated complaints were made with regard to emission of high heat and high consumption of oil was not at all addressed properly and within short span of time, engine and other important parts were changed and replaced which all proved that there is an inherent defects, in the parts of the machine. On the basis of the conclusion sale of machine with defective engine by the dealer and improper repair by the service dealers amounts to deficiency in service for which all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the date of complaint with 9% interest till its realisation.

14.     We also further awarded a cost of Rs.5000/- which is to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.

1. The opposite parties  are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.5,00,000/- with 9% interest p.a from the date of complaint till realisation.

2. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards cost.

       Sd/-                                                                        Sd/-

R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                S.KARUPPIAH

            MEMBER                                            PRESIDING JUDL MEMBER

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Ex.A.1          copy of purchase invoice dated 8.12.2014

Ex.A.2          copy of V.S.T Service job card dated 11.5.2015

Ex.A.3          copy of V.S.T Service job card dated 28.9.2015-29.9.2015

Ex.A.4          copy of VST service job card dated 6.10.2015 – 17.10.2015

Ex.A.5          copy of complaint letter dated 19.10.2016

Ex.A.6          copy of complaint letter dated 7.11.2016

Ex.A.7          copy of Vaigai Automotive job card dated 15.2.2017 

Ex.A.8          copy of a letter dated 21.10.2016 sent to the 1^st opposite party

Ex.A.9          copy of legal notice dated 23.10.2016 to the complainant by the Sundaram Finance Ltd

Ex.A.10        copy of complaint by email 10.1.2017

Ex.A.11        copy of receipt for gold ornament sold dated 11.1.2017

Ex.A.12        copy of email dated 31.1.2017

Ex.A.13        copy of receipt for purchase of spare parts at Vaigai Automotive dated   18.2.2017

Ex.A.14        copy of a letter given by the Sundaram Finance Ltd dated 24.2.2017

Ex.A.15        copy of a letter to the 1^st opposite party by the complainant dated 28.2.2016.

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

Ex.B.1          copy of reply notice dated 8.5.2017 by the opposite party to the complainant

 

    Sd/-                                                                                          Sd/-

R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                  S.KARUPPIAH

            MEMBER                                                       PRESIDING JUDL MEMBER