DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; BHADRAK
…………………
C.D.Case No.15 of 2014
Sri Krushna Chandra Sahu,
S/o: Late Sagar Sahu,
At: Padmapur, PO: Ganjeibadi,
PS/Dist:Bhadrak(Rural)
…………………..Complainant
(Vrs.)
1. Escort Agri Machinery,
Administrative Office: 18/4,
Mathura Road, Faridabad-121007
2. M/s.Tarini Machineries,
Authorised Dealer of Escort Farmtrac,
N.H.-5, Main Road,
At/PO: Charampa,
PS/Dist:Bhadrak
3. The Branch Manager,
The Balasore-Bhadrak Central
Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
At/PO/PS/Dist:Bhadrak
……………………..Opp.Parties
Order No.24 dt.24.11.2015:
The case of the Complainant is that he is an agriculturist by profession. The Complainant for his agricultural purpose and earning his livelihood approached the O.P.No.3 on 10.10.2010 for a tractor loan and after considering the viability and scrutinizing the landed documents sanctioned loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and placed order with O.P.No.2 for supply of Escort Farmtrac FT-30(HERO), 34 HP(CAT) Tractor. After purchase of the tractor the Complainant within the warranty period found leakage of oil & Mobil from piston and engine of the tractor, non-functioning of brake properly and breakage of gear box. The Complainant brought this fact to the notice of O.P.No.2. Due to non-availability of the parts readily with him, the O.P.No.2 assured to replace the same within warranty period. Complainant from time to time met the O.P.No.2 who intimated that the Complainant that his grievance has been forwarded to the Administrative Office at Faridabad. The Service Engineer will come from Faridabad to check the vehicle. The Complainant believing the version of O.P.No.2 parked the vehicle in his house without any business activities. In the meanwhile, warranty period expired and the O.P.No.2 refused to replace the defective parts or repair the vehicle. As the vehicle could not be repaired, the Complainant faced irreparable loss and could not pay the instalment amount to O.P.No.3. Further, the Complainant states that the O.P.No.3 has not provided the copy of the loan agreement, schedule copy of EMI for which the Complainant is in dark about the terms & conditions of the loan as well as the copy of the statement of account. Complainant served Advocate’s Notice on 26.12.2013 and as no step was taken by O.Ps, he filed the present case on 06.02.2014 praying for a direction to O.Ps 1 & 2 to replace the tractor by a new one or to return the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. Further, the Complainant has prayed that the O.P.NO.2 be directed not to charge the interest or penal interest towards the loan account and provide the copy of loan agreement, statement of account and schedule copy of EMI.
O.P.No.1filed written version stating therein that tractors are manufactured by a high skilled work force and modern machines to ensure that every tractor produced is of highest quality and provides utmost consumer satisfaction. The O.P.No.1 enjoys tremendous goodwill and reputation in the market and trade in respect of the said product. Tractors are delivered by the O.P.No.1 only after conducting the Pre-Delivery Inspection and to the entire satisfaction of the customers with the working conditions. The O.P.No.1 denied the allegation of the Complainant that O.Ps 1 & 2 delivered tractor suffering from defect of oil and mobil leakage from piston and breakage of bearing of gear box. The tractor delivered was top quality duly inspected/tested by the O.Ps 1 & 2 and not suffering from any defect of whatsoever nature. The Complainant at the time of purchase of the tractor was duly informed about the ideal way of handling cum using the tractor and the mandatory service schedule to be followed. The Complainant stayed lenient and neither handled the tractor properly nor cared to get the service of his tractor done in time. Further, the Complainant during service did not raise any issue in tractor as alleged in the complaint. He has himself signed the job cards after completion of services followed by road test which clearly witness that there exists no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of O.Ps. Moreover, the Complainant has not annexed report of any independent expert as defined u/s.2(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act or any other documents to substantiate the alleged defects. The O.P.N.1 cannot be held liable for the acts or omissions if any on the part of O.P.No.2.Hence, the O.P.No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
O.P.No.2 neither appeared nor filed any written version this case. As such, O.P.No.2 has been set exparte vide order dt.26.07.2014.
O.P.No.3 filed written version stating therein that the Complainant had applied for a tractor loan to the O.P.No.3. On 25.08.2010 the Complainant had filed quotation from M/s. Tarini Machineries, Charampa, Bhadrak on his own choice. After scrutiny of the relevant documents, the present O.P. sanctioned the loan on 16.12.2010 vide order No.16890. On 08.03.2011 the Complainant filed a petition before the O.P. that he had received all accessories along with the said Tractor from O.P.No.2 and requested for payment. The present O.P. released the payment accordingly. Further, the problem of the tractor is absolutely the matter between the Complainant and O.P.No.2. The present O.P. is not responsible for this matter any manner. O.P.No.3 is a financial institute to finance the borrowers and recollect the finance amount with interest within the stipulated period. He is not responsible for any defect or damage of the borrowers. So the O.P.No.3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
We have heard the Ld.Counsel appearing on both sides and perused the documents available on record. The Complainant has prayed for a direction to O.Ps 1 & 2 to make replacement of the Escort Tractor in question or to refund Rs.5,00,000/- towards the cost of the tractor. It is submitted on behalf of the Complainant that after purchase of the tractor the Complainant found leakage of oil & Mobil from piston and engine of the tractor, non-functioning of brake properly and breakage of gear box within the warranty period. Several times the Complainant visited the show room of the O.P.No.2 but the O.P.No.2 with some plea or other avoided to repair the tractor. As such, the Complainant sustained financial loss and could not pay the instalment dues in time. Ld.Counsel for O.P.No.1 vehemently argued that the case is not maintainable as it is barred by Limitation. Whenever the Complainant brought the tractor for untimely service, he was provided with quick service. The Complainant during service has not raised any issue in tractor as alleged in the complaint. The Complainant has signed the job cards after completion of service followed by road test. Further, the Complainant has filed this case with malafide intention to wriggle out of its financial liabilities towards the O.P.No.3.As such there exists no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of O.P.No.1.
Having heard both sides and going through the record, it is found that the Complainant took delivery of Farmtrac Hero Tractor FT30, 34 HP(CAT) Engine from O.P.No.2 on 02.03.3011(Annexure-3) for a consideration amount of Rs.6,41,500/- out of which, the cost of tractor is Rs.5,10,000/-. Admittedly, no Job sheet has been filed by the O.P.No.1 to know the complaint of the Complainant and the job done by the O.P.No.2 during free service. The Complainant has filed Xerox copy of his complaint dt.10.03.2011 lodged before O.P.No.2 stating therein that oil and mobil leakage is found from the piston and engine from the date of purchase of tractor. So requested the O.P.No.2 to make good the defects found in the tractor. Xerox copy of letter dt.15.03.2011 filed by the Complainant goes to show that the mechanic of O.P.No.2 denied to attend the vehicle as no Mechanic of the Company was available. In the letter dt.18.04.2011 to O.P.No.2, the Complainant has stated that oil and mobil leakage is found in spite of repairing made by his Mechanic. Further odd sound is coming from engine. In his letter dt.03.01.2012, the Complainant reiterating oil and mobil leakage from piston and engine and breakage of bearing of gear box, he has requested the O.P.No.2 to replace the defective parts within the warranty period. As the O.P.No.2 failed to remove the defects found in the tractor, the Complainant served Advocate’s Notice dt.26.12.2013 requesting O.Ps 1 & 2 to repair or replace the parts without charging service fee or cost of parts. So we are convinced that during warranty period the defects found in the tractor of the Complainant could not the removed by O.Ps 1 &2. The stand of O.P.No.1 is that the Complainant during free service has not raised any issue in tractor as alleged in the complaint. When admittedly, no job sheet available with O.P.No.1 has been filed in this case showing details of complaints and job done during warranty period against the tractor of the Complainant, we are unable to accept the contention raised by O.P.No.1 that alleged were not raised during free service. So it is found that the O.Ps are 1 & 2 have not rendered proper service to the Complainant during warranty period of the tractor. Hence, it is ordered:
O R D E R
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part against the O.P.No.1 on contest and exparte against O.P.No.2. The O.Ps 1 & 2 are directed to remove the alleged defects found in the tractor of the Complainant to his best satisfaction by replacing the parts, if any, without charging anything. On receipt of intimation from O.Ps 1 & 2, the Complainant shall produce the tractor before O.P.No.2 for necessary repair. The above direction shall be complied with the O.Ps 1 & 2 within 30 days of receipt of this order. Parties to bear their own costs.
