BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 150 of 2013.
Date of Institution : 27.8.2013.
Date of Decision : 14.9.2016.
Shishpal son of Shri Mahipat Ram, resident of village Rajpuria, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
……Complainant.
Versus.
- M/s D.D. Motors, Hisar Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa, through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Manager.
2. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Farm Division, Regd. Office: Gateway Building, Appolo Bunder, Mumbai- 400 001 (Marketing Office: Akurli Road, Kandivli (E), Mumbai- 400101, 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. P.K. Berwal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. R.K. Chauhdary, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. J.S. Sidhu, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant purchased a new Mahindra Tractor, Model Arjun-605, make 2012 from opposite party no.1 on 26.9.2012 for a sum of Rs.6,90,000/- vide invoice No.013 dated 26.9.2012. The said tractor is manufactured by op no.2. The complainant got registered the tractor vide registration No.RJ-13RA/9489. However, when the complainant used the tractor for his agriculture work, the tractor did not give the desired performance. The engine of the tractor used to give back pressure and used to consume excess fuel and mobile oil and complainant reported the matter in this regard to op no.1 on 10.6.2013. The op no.1 got checked the tractor from its mechanic who made some adjustment in the engine and stated that the tractor is now being kept on observation. But even then, the tractor did not work properly and above defects persisted in the tractor. The complainant again reported the above defects in the tractor upon which on 20.6.2013, the engine was changed by op no.1 but even then the tractor did not work properly and above said defects remained in the tractor. The new engine give noise like an old engine and used to consume more fuel and mobile oil. The complainant again visited the op no.1 and reported the above defects but op no.1 refused to do anything in the matter. Then complainant on 2.7.2013 got checked the tractor from a private mechanic who reported that the engine of the tractor gives noise like an old tractor, engine does not bear any mark/sign of engine and engine number and same has no original colour rather has been painted, engine gives back pressure and due to back pressure, the mobile returns from the pipes and the turbo does not work properly and that engine consumes 12 liters diesel per hour whereas the oil consumption should not exceed 9 liters per hour. So, it clearly shows that op no.1 has affixed a duplicate engine in the tractor of complainant. The op no.1 has sold a defective and substandard tractor and also fitted a duplicate engine in the tractor and thereby has caused wrongful loss and harassment to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to replacement of the tractor or refund of the price and is also entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses from the ops. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party no.1 contested the case by filing reply asserting therein that complainant purchased the tractor from answering op which was delivered on 26.9.2012 after pre-delivery inspection and it was in perfect condition at the time of delivery. The complainant produced his tractor service on 15.10.2012 at 45 hours of working. Thereafter, he again visited the op for service on 9.5.2013 after its 770 hours of working and again on 10.6.2013 after its 909 hours of working. The service was done by op no.1 to the satisfaction of the complainant. On the complaint of the complainant, the engine was replaced by op no.2, which was fitted in the tractor for the satisfaction of the complainant. Again on the complaint, the answering op offered to replace the engine on goodwill basis and the complainant was advised to visit the workshop within ten days, but he has not produced the tractor. The op no.1 is always ready to give better services and to remove the defects, if any. The complainant may get the tractor inspected from the competent authority at Hisar and if there is any manufacturing defect, the ops are ready to remove the same and there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering op. It is further asserted that performance of the tractor depends on its use and care. The complainant has reported the op no.1 regarding the alleged performance of the tractor after more than eight and half months which clearly proves that the alleged defect is due to rash and negligent use of the tractor by the complainant and not due to any manufacturing defect. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 filed its separate written statement asserting therein that tractor was purchased by complainant in the month of September, 2012. In the month of June, 2013 he complained about poor performance of the tractor and engine. Upon inspection of the tractor by service team of op no.1, it was observed that the problem in the engine was due to its poor filtration, which mainly occurs if the tractor is not maintained properly. The complainant had got first service of the tractor on 45 hours of working. Thereafter, the next service of the tractor was done at 770 hours of working on 9.5.2013. This evidently shows that the complainant has missed two mandatory services at 350 hours and 650 hours and has not got conducted proper servicing of the tractor. Inspite of the above, the op no.1 replaced the engine. Thereafter, once again the complainant complained about performance of the tractor and also about problem in the engine. Pursuant thereto, op no.1 informed answering op and on inspection it was noticed that oil consumption is due to problem in Air Cleaner system and answering op offered to replace the engine on goodwill basis vide letter dated 18.9.2013 but complainant refused to bring the tractor for replacement of engine and demanded the replacement of tractor. It is further asserted that in case of any problem under warranty the parts are replaced. In the present case even though subject problem does not require replacement of engine, but it was offered to him on goodwill. The ops are willing to provide prompt and efficient service to the complainant whenever the same are required and demanded by complainant.
4. By way of evidence, the complainant has placed on file his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of invoice Ex.C2, copy of form 21 Ex.C3, copy of registration certificate Ex.C4, copy of job card dated 10.6.2013 Ex.C5 and copy of inspection report of Jangra Agriculture Workshop Ex.C6. Whereas, ops have placed on file affidavit Ex.R1, affidavit of op no.1 Ex.R2, copies of job cards Ex.R3 to R6 and e-mail sent to the complainant Ex.R7.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. The problems raised by the complainant in the tractor in question are related to the engine of the tractor. In the report Ex.C6 placed on file by the complainant given by a Subhash Chander Mechanic of Jangra Agriculture Workshop, the defects pointed out by him are also related to the engine of the tractor. The opposite parties have alleged that upon inspection of the tractor in the month of june, 2013, it was observed that the problem in the engine was due to its poor filtration, which mainly occurs if the tractor is not maintained properly. It was also noticed that oil consumption is due to problem in air cleaner system. The opposite parties are ready to replace the engine and have placed on file e-mail sent to the complainant in this regard as Ex.R7. According to the ops, the complainant wanted replacement of the tractor. There is no other evidence on file to prove that besides the problem in the engine, the tractor in question is having some other defects.
7. Since the grievances of the complainant are related to the engine of the tractor and the opposite parties are ready to replace the engine of the tractor, therefore, we are of the considered view that complainant is not entitled to replacement of the tractor in question. At the most, the opposite parties can be directed to replace the engine of the tractor and to make the tractor in question defect free without charging any amount from the complainant. As such, the complainant will be required to take the tractor in question in the authorized agency/ workshop of the opposite parties upon which the opposite parties jointly and severally will replace the engine of the tractor in question with a new one and will make the tractor in question defect free after necessary repairs and replacement of parts, if any free of costs within a period of one month. The present complaint stands disposed of accordingly. 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:14.9.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa
