Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, for directing 1st Opposite party to take the tractor, trailer & equipments and refund Rs.3,27,360/- with interest at 18% and to pay Rs.1,19,360/- as damages and compensation. 2. The facts of the complaint are as follows; The 1st Opposite party being a dealer of 2nd Opposite party Tractors at Pandavapura advertised the ANGAD Tractor in their Village, during the 1st week of June 2006. The 1st Opposite party approached the complainant and convinced to look after and take extra work in R.T.O., and Insurance Company, if the complainant purchased the ANGAD 240-D Tractor and trailer etc. and promised to make loan arrangement in Corporation Bank, Pandavapura and accordingly, the complainant agreed for the same. The complainant furnished the documents to 1st Opposite party for the loan and in the presence of 1st Opposite party the complainant signed some of the documents issued by the Bank and also the 1st Opposite party. The 1st Opposite party issued quotation to Corporation Bank for Rs.3,27,360/- on 06.02.2006 and 1st Opposite party received cash of Rs.43,000/- on 23,06.2006 and issued cash receipt on 07.07.2006, the 1st Opposite party issued cash receipt for receipt of Rs.3,27,360/- to Corporation Bank by furnishing the Invoice delivery note. The problems of the said tractor commenced from 35th working hour due to non-performance of ploughing at field and immediately the complainant contacted the 1st Opposite party through phone, informed the same and to depute one foreman, after 20 days, the foreman repaired by collecting an amount of Rs.2,000/-. On that day, the complainant noticed the tractor and trailer is not bearing I.S.I symbol. Several complaints were lodged with 1st Opposite party and also Manager, Corporation Bank, Pandavapura. Due to pressure of the Bank, Sri.G.Vasantha Rao, General Manager, of Tractor Company came to Bank on 10.11.2006 and discussed with the persons including the complainant and the Manager regarding problems of the tractor and he informed the complainant and others that the problems will be attended by the technical person and for any future problem, the problems will be attended at Chirantan Tractors, Mandya. But nobody attended the tractor at spot. So the tractor was taken to Chirantan Tractors on 27.11.2006 along with the tractor and other foreman. After some repairs, the tractor was taken to complainant field to plough the land, but failed due to defects of the tractor. The main problems of the tractor are:- 1) There is no control of the trailer on the road, if the trailer loaded even for one ton capacity, since the breaks were not in order and good condition. 2) There was a problem of hydraulic pump, gear box problem, front wheels problem, gear problem, clutch plates were not properly working no pickup, not possible to plough the land properly and not possible to turn. There was no proper assembling of wheels and the tyre separated in the up-gradient movement and while ploughing the land, rubber belts damaged several times. So the tractor is stationed permanently and the complainant spent Rs.10,000/- for minor repairs. The 1st Opposite party has not furnished the manual book of the tractor, which contained the service coupons. So, the tractor has a manufacturing defect. As per the advertisement, the tractor supplied is very low priced tractor in the world i.e. Rs.1,40,000/- - 22 H.P. 18 M.P.1 and low maintenance. Due to several complaints regarding the tractor the Corporation Bank approached the authorities of the tractor, company and on their information the bank wrote letters to the complainant on 06.01.2007 to get the repairs at Chirantan Tractors and convened a meeting on 22.12.2007, due to improper service and deficiency of service of 1st Opposite party, 2nd Opposite party changed the dealership of 1st Opposite party and in his place M/s A.N.Tractors of Srirampur, Mysore was appointed. The complainant being a small farmer purchased the tractor on assurance of 1st Opposite party and due to non-working of the tractor, the complainant suffered loss to the extent of Rs.36,000/- apart from minor repairs to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and advance payment of Rs.43,360/- was paid to 1st Opposite party. The complainant has suffered mental agony and damages for Rs.30,000/- is claimed and on these grounds the present complaint is filed. 3. The notices were served on 1 & 2nd Opposite parties and they have filed version separately. 4. The version of 1st Opposite party is as follows:- Disputing the allegations of opened a shop at Pandavapura and advertised the ANGAD Tractor and approach by 1st Opposite party and to provide loan facility. It is pleaded that the complainant himself approached 1st Opposite party to purchase a tractor and on his request 1st Opposite party issued quotation and the loan sanctioned by Corporation Bank, Pandavapura, but disputed that the 1st Opposite party accompanied the complainant in the bank and his signatures were obtained by the 1st Opposite party to the documents issued by the bank. Admitting the issue of quotation and invoice for sum of Rs.3,27,360/- and received a cash of Rs.43,000/- by issuing cash receipt on 07.07.2006 and issued cash receipt of Rs.3,27,360/- from Corporation Bank by furnishing the invoice, but, on the request made by the complainant, the 1st Opposite party without receiving the amount and issued cash receipt of Rs.43,000/- with confidence. Regarding the problems of the tractor and trailers, the 1st Opposite party delivered new vehicle to the complainant as per the company manual for ploughing the land. The complainant using the vehicle as heavy tractor of more than 35 HP and though advised to use the vehicle as per the company manual and guidelines, but after using the vehicle more than 900 hours usually the vehicle will be repaired on account of proper maintenance and so 1st Opposite Party is not responsible. The defects of the tractor alleged in the complaint are denied. It is not correct that the complainant spent Rs.10,000/- for minor repairs. The 1st Opposite party has supplied company manual with service coupon. Due to financial problem and loss of business, the 1st Opposite party voluntarily requested the company to close the dealership. It is denied that the complainant suffered loss of Rs.36,000/- and spent Rs.10,000/- for minor repairs and advance payment of Rs.43,360/- was paid. The 1st Opposite party came to know the problem from the complainant when the vehicle was used for 900 hours and 4 services were done by the 1st Opposite party. Then, 1st Opposite party informed the General Manager of the company for attending the complaint. Thereon, 2nd Opposite party took necessary action for repairs of vehicle at Chirantan Tractors, Mandya. So, there is no deficiency of service by 1st Opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to any compensation and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 5. The 2nd Opposite party has filed version disputing the allegations made in the complaint, but admitting the purchase of the Angad tractor by the complainant. The 2nd Opposite party has also denied the manufacturing defects alleged and also denied that G.Vasantha Rao of the company came to the bank and discussed with the persons regarding the problems of the tractor and agreed to send technical person for attending the problems and for any future problem to approach Chirantan Tractors, Mandya. The trailer was not manufactured by 2nd Opposite party and for any short coming or defect, 2nd Opposite party is not responsible for its suitability and quality, no tractor as ISI mark, but the tractor has been tested by Central Farm Machinery Tractor Testing Institute for compliance to standards laid down by Bureao of Indian Standards and found to be compliance to the relevant standards and it is also approved by Ministry of Agriculture. The problems alleged by the complainant are due to his lack of knowledge about operating the tractor as he himself admitted that he never received the manual book. The problems alleged are not manufacturing defects, therefore the 2nd Opposite party is not liable for any problem and complaint is liable to be dismissed. 6. During trail, the Complainant and one witness are examined and Ex.C.1 to C.10 are produced along with other documents. 1st & 2nd Opposite parties are examined and Ex.R.1 to R.13 are marked. During trial, the Commissioner was appointed to test the tractor and trailer about the alleged defects and Commissioner has submitted report after inspection. 7. We have heard both sides. 8. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1) Whether the complainant proves that 1st Opposite party has collected excess price for the tractor and trailer supplied? 2) Whether the tractor and trailer supplied is having manufacturing defects? 3) Whether the complainant has spent amount for the repairs and also sustained loss? 4) Whether the 1st & 2nd Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service? 5) What order? 9. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 10. POINT No.1:- The undisputed facts are that, the 1st Opposite party is the dealer of Angad 240-D tractor manufactured by 2nd Opposite party Company. The complainant is in agriculturist. The complainant purchased the tractor, trailer and equipments from the 1st Opposite party by borrowing the loan from the Corporation Bank, Pandavapura on furnishing the quotation and invoice to the Corporation Bank by 1st Opposite party. As per Ex.C.1 quotation was for totally 3,27,360/- and the tractor cost is mentioned as Rs.1,40,000/-. As per Ex.C.2, the 1st Opposite party has received advance of Rs.43,360/- from the complainant and further 1st Opposite party has issued cash receipt for Rs.3,27,360/- to the Manager, Corporation Bank. According to the invoice, Ex.C.5 the cost of the tractor is Rs.1,50,000/- and the total amount in the invoice Ex.C.5 is Rs.3,37,360/-. The contention of 1st Opposite party that he deposited initial amount of Rs.43,360/- to the bank and he issued the receipt Ex.C.2 to the complainant cannot be believed and further his evidence that he paid the loan at Chinakurali Bank and obtained no due certificate cannot be accepted and there is no proof at all. In the evidence, 1st Opposite party has admitted the price of the tractor is Rs.1,40,000/-. In the quotation, the price of the tractor is shown as Rs.1,40,000/-, but in the invoice it is shown as Rs.1,50,000/- and it is within a period of 5 months. In spite of admission in his evidence and though the complainant took notice to 1st & 2nd Opposite parties to produce the price list of the tractor, they did not produce and only at the time of arguments, the 1st Opposite party has produced a copy of the letter of the 2nd Opposite party and revised price list with effect from 01.06.2006, but this document cannot be believed because nothing prevented to produce original as he has closed the showroom in respect of Angad Tractors of the 1st Opposite party Company. 11. Even though, the complainant contended that he has paid advance of Rs.43,360/- and relied upon Ex.C.1 if we consider the receipt issued to the bank. Ex.C.3 is the receipt and the bank account extract Ex.C.9. The loan sanctioned by the bank and paid by the bank to the 1st Opposite party is only Rs.2,84,000/-. So, the complainant has paid down payment of Rs.43,360/-. So Rs.2,84,000/- + 43,360/- comes to Rs.3,27,360/- and it tallies with Ex.C.3 receipt issued to the bank by 1st Opposite party. So, it cannot be accepted that the complainant has paid extra amount of Rs.43,360/-. But in view of the admission of the 1st Opposite party and quotation and the invoice it is proved that 1st Opposite party has collected extra amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of the tractor. 12. Further, as per Ex.C.5 he has collected Rs.12,000/- for registration of the vehicle in the RTO Office and Insurance. As per the insurance certificate Ex.C.10, the insurance premium is only Rs.3,606/- and as per the RC book produce, life tax paid is Rs.2,025 and registration charges Rs.500/-, so totally Rs.6,131/- and including other expenses, the amount spent by the 1st Opposite party for registration of the vehicle and insurance comes to only Rs.6,500/-, but he has collected Rs.12,000/- stating it includes VAT also, but what is the VAT amount is not mentioned. Therefore, we can safely say that 1st Opposite party has collected extra amount of Rs.3,500/- for registration and insurance expenses and hence is liable to refund the excess price of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.3,500/- being the excess amount collected for registration and insurance. 13. POINTS NO.2 & 3:- The complainant has alleged that the tractor is having manufacturing defects and they could not be rectified in spite of repairs. The 1st & 2nd Opposite parties have denied the same, so commissioner was appointed, Senior Grade Lecturer, Department of Automobile Engineering, P.E.S. College of Engineering, Mandya has inspected the tractor and trailer in the presence of the complainant and his advocate and advocate of 1st Opposite party. Though the objections were filed by the complainant to the commissioner report stating that in collusion with 2nd Opposite party false report is filed, the objections were rejected as they were without any basis. The commissioner report reveals that there are only minor defects which have come under regular maintenance and there are no manufacturing defects in the tractor. 14. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that the 2nd Opposite party has produced Ex.R.8 the certificate which discloses the technical specification of the tractor and those specifications are not found in the owners service manual Ex.R.12. We have perused the specifications found in these 2 documents and it cannot be accepted that the specification found in Ex.R.8 are not found in Ex.C.12. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove the manufacturing defects in the tractor. 15. Now admittedly the trailer and agricultural equipments were manufactured and sold by 1st Opposite party dealer to the complainant. The complainant has deposed the problems at the time of ploughing and also using the trailer. In support of his evidence complainant has examined a witness who is also purchaser of the tractor of 2nd Opposite party company. The complainant has produced the letters of the bank from which he borrowed the loan and they are dated 06.01.2007, 13.12.2007 and 08.01.2008 and they clearly established that so many purchasers of the tractor from 1st Opposite party have complained and the bank had convened a meeting and informed the 2nd Opposite party company and the evidence of the complainant that Vasantha Rao, the General Manager of 2nd Opposite party company has attended the meeting and assured to send their technician to examine the vehicle and for future problems to approach the Chiranthan Tractors is supported by the Bank letters and as per the letter dated 08.01.2008, the company has informed that they have opened Service Centre at Mysore and M/s A.N.Tractor at Srirampura, Mysore is the approved service centre for any problems of the tractors. So by using the tractor and trailer equipments supplied by 1st Opposite party, the complainant has experienced problems and he got repaired. Though the 1st Opposite party has pleaded that the tractor was not used according to the guidelines and manual and 4 free services were provided, but his evidence cannot be believed. Even though, he has produced Ex.R.1 and R.2 service cards and job cards Ex.R.4 and R.5, in the job cards Ex.R.4 and R.5 the engine number of the tractor is different and there is no signature of the complainant or his son, one Rajappa has put signature and who is that Rajappa is not explained. This job card prima facie appears to be fresh one and not prepared two years back. With regard to the service coupons Ex.R.1 and R.2, if we see the handwriting and the ink used, they are one and the same and therefore, the evidence of the complainant that 1st Opposite party has obtained his signature to some documents in the bank is to be accepted and that pleading in the complaint is not denied by the 1st Opposite party at all. Therefore, Ex.R.1 & R.2 which should have been sent to the company were still with 1st Opposite party and there is no explanation for the same. Therefore, even though the complainant has not produced the documents, we have to accept that he has spent more than Rs.10,000/- for the repairs in the circumstances of the case. 16. POINT NO.4:- With regard to deficiency of service, admittedly the 2nd Opposite party has issued dealership to 1st Opposite party and Ex.R.13 is the brochure for advertisement of the tractor of the company and according to the evidence of 2nd Opposite party, the trailer and implements should be in accordance with the specification of the company, but 1st Opposite party has sold the tractor of the 2nd Opposite party company and not the trailer and agricultural implements specified by 1st Opposite party company. The 1st Opposite party got manufactured the trailer and implements without any approval by the Government Department or the 2nd Opposite party. The company has to confirm that this machinery will suit to the Angad Tractors manufactured by 1st Opposite party. So in view of the brochure when the trailer and equipments are prescribed by the company to suit the 22 HP engine of the tractor manufactured by 2nd Opposite party, the company should have given dealership to a dealer for sale of company tractor along with the trailer and equipments and not the trailer and equipments prepared by the dealer which are not at all approved by 2nd Opposite party company or Government Department. Naturally locally prepared and unapproved by the Government Department and the trailer and equipments will cause defects and problem of repairs to the engine. By the sale of unapproved trailer and equipments by the dealer not approved by the manufacture of the tractor or any Government Department, it can be safely said that both the dealer and company have committed unfair trade practice to lure the illiterate and innocent farmers for the purpose of the sale of tractor only. Mere purchase of tractor is not at all useful to any farmer without trailer and equipments. So permitting the dealer to sell locally prepared trailer and equipments, 2nd Opposite party has also committed deficiency in service and these acts are done intentionally to lure the innocent and illiterate farmers. The company should have taken care for the sale of the tractor and insisted to sell the trailer and equipments approved by it. The complainant has produced photos of the trailer if we see the photos and the brochure Ex.R.13 the wheels of the trailer must be at a little distance from the middle as per the brochure, but in the photos the wheels are almost near the centre of the body. Therefore, it is doubtful whether it is a fit condition to suite the tractor. Therefore, 1st & 2nd Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service which made the complainant to get repairs of the tractor often and often and parked the tractor idle without using for some days till repairs are carried out. 1st & 2nd Opposite party have not cared to receive legal notice sent by registered post, 2nd Opposite party has refused the notice. Therefore, it is a fit case to award punitive damages of Rs.25,000/- each payable by 1st & 2nd Opposite party for their deficiency in service and a direction is to be given to 2nd Opposite party. 17. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is partly allowed directing 1st Opposite Party to pay Rs.10,000/- being the excess cost of the tractor and Rs.3,500/- being the excess amount collected for registration and further to pay punitive damages of Rs.25,000/- with cost of Rs.500/-. 2nd Opposite party is directed not to give the dealership to anyone unless the trailer and agricultural equipments of its company are sold along with tractor and further directed to pay punitive damages of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant with cost of Rs.500/-. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 31st day of July 2008). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
