IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SONITPUR AT TEZPUR
District: Sonitpur
Present: Smti A. Devee
President,
District Consumer D.R Forum,
Sonitpur, Tezpur
Smti S.Bora
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum,Sonitpur
Sri P.Das
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sonitpur
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.28/2018
1.Md Abdul Kalam : Complainant
S/o Late Hussain Ali
R/o of Vill: Naharbari
P.O Ulubari, P.S-Thelamora
Dist:Sonitpur (Assam)
Vs.
1.H.M.B Trailor Industry & Tractor Agency : Opp. party
Preet Tractors Pvt.Ltd..H.O Batamari,
P.O: Bhojkhowachapori,P.S Tezpur
Dist:Sonitpur,Assam-784027
2. H.M.B Trailor Industry and Tractor Agency
Preet Tractors Pvt. Ltd.
B.O :-Da-Dhara N.T Road
P.O & P.S Tezpur, Dist: Sonitpur, Assam-784001
3.The Oriental Insurance Compnay Ltd.
N.T Road, Tezpur,Sonitpur,Assam-784001
Appearance:
Mr R.Bharali,Adv : For the Complainant
None appeared : For the Opp. party No.1 & 2
Mr S.K Acharya,Adv. : For Opp. party No.3
Date of argument : 30-04-2019
Date of Judgment : 15-05-2019
JUDGMENT
- The case of the Complainant, in brief, is that on 14-06-2018, he had purchased the tractor bearing Engine No.P450-06280, Chassis No.92175019559 manufactured by Preet Tractors Pvt. Ltd., at a cost price of Rs.7,65,000/- from opposite party No.2 with financial assistance of Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.with the intent of tilling his arable lands to make a living with his family. The tractor was insured with the opposite party No.3.After a few days of its purchase, the tractor developed defect and the problem was intimated to the opposite party No.2. Technical and mechanical expert of the manufacturing company visited the tractor at his residence, but being unable to mend the defect, suggested the Complainant to bring the tractor to the dealer, opposite party No.2. Complainant accordingly, brought the tractor to the premises of opposite party No.2 on 25-07-2018, but the defects in the tractor being persistent and non-mendable, the same had still been lying at the premises of the opp. party No.2. Having suffered irreparable loss in the peak season of cultivation owing to non-operation of the tractor, attention of the opposite party no.2 was drawn by the Complainant over his grievances, through a notice dated 10-08-2018 to which, the opposite party No.2, vide reply dated 25-08-2018, refused its liabilities and asked the complainant to take delivery of the said damaged tractor by falsely stating that “the tractor has been repaired and the Complainant had the test drive in three occasion”.Alleging fraudulent sale of a defective product by opp. Party No.2 and thereby commission of gross deficiency in service by the opposite party, the Complainant is therefore before the Forum praying replacement of the tractor by a new one or refund of the entire sale price of the tractor to the Complainant with interest incurred thereon, compensation of Rs.50,000/- for loss suffered for non-performance of the tractor, further compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for inconveniences, harassment, mental pain and agony etc. and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.
- Opp. party No.1 & 2 having failed to file written version within the statutory period, their petition for further time to file written version was rejected vide order dated 26-12-2018. The opposite party No.1 & 2 were however, allowed to take part in the rest of the proceedings. But they failed to take any step after 26-12-2018. Opposite party No.3 contested the case and had filed written version praying dismissal of the case against it on the ground that no claim has been raised by the Complainant against the opp. party No.3.
- Complainant tendered his evidence-in-chief and that of his two other witnesses on affidavit. Several documents were also exhibited by Complainant. As stated in the preceding paragraph, despite liberty being given to the opp. party No.1 & 2 to take part in the rest of the proceeding as aforementioned, none for the opposite party No.1 & 2 appeared to challenge the evidence adduced by the Complainant and his witnesses. The Complainant and his witnesses were however cross-examined by opposite party No.3.
We have carefully gone through the entire materials available on record including written argument. Also heard learned counsels for the contesting parties. The following points are drawn for determination of the case.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
(i)Whether the tractor in question was a defective one ?
(ii)Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for ?
DISCUSSION ON THE POINTS AND DECISION THEREOF:
3.Point No.(i) –The opposite party No.1 and 2, as pointed out earlier, failed to submit any written version and take part in hearing of the case.
4. Complainant in his evidence on affidavit as C.W.1, stated what have been stated in the complaint.According to him -
i)he had purchased the tractor in question from the opposite party No.1 on 14/06/2018 by taking financial assistance;
ii)after few days of purchase the tractor developed some defects;
iii)on being informed the opposite party No.1 & 2 sent technical and mechanical expert to attend the vehicle. They inspected the vehicle but were unable to repair the defects. As per their advice the vehicle was taken to the dealer on25-07-2018 and since then the tractor has been lying with the dealer without repair;
iv)On being served with a legal notice dtd. 10-08-2018, the opposite parties made false claim through their reply dtd. 25-08-18 stating that “the tractor has been repaired and the Complainant had the test drive in three occasion”.
5. The opposite party Nos.1 & 2 failed to disprove the evidence of the Complainant either by cross-examining the Complainant or otherwise. They even failed to produce any document in support of their claim made through the reply dtd. 25-08-2018 that the Complainant was asked to take delivery of the tractor and on three occasion he had the opportunity to test drive the tractor after repair. On the otherhand, by adducing documentary evidence in the form of Ext-7, Complainant has proved that the tractor in question was deposited with the opposite party No.2 on 25-07-2018. The tractor was purchased only on 14-06-2018. The vehicle has been lying with the opposite party No.2 for about one year.
6. Since the defects developed after about one month of its purchase and the dealer could not rectify the defects till date, we have no hesitation to hold that the tractor sold to the Complainant had patent/inherent defects.
Point No.1 is decided accordingly in favour of the Complainant.
7.Point No.(ii):-Complainant has prayed reliefs as under :-
a) Replacement of the tractor by a new one or refund of the entire sale price of the tactor to the
Complainant with interest incurred thereon;
b) Compensation of Rs.50,000/- for loss suffered for non-performance of the tractor;
c) Further compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for inconveniences, harassment, mental pain and
agony etc.; and -
d) Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.
8. Admittedly, the Complainant had purchased the tractor by taking loan from Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.
9. The Complainant, in our opinion, under the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly as the Complainant failed to get any service from the tractor, is entitled to receive back from the opposite party No.1 and 2 the amount paid by him to the finance Company and the amount of insurance premium paid with interest @9% per annum from the date of payment till realization in full. Further, Complainant is also entitled to get a lumpsum amount of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One Lakh)only as cost of litigation and compensation, for inconvenience, mental pain agony etc.,from the opposite party No.1 and 2. The opposite party No.3 is only the insurer of the vehicle. Under the facts and reliefs claimed, we have found that the Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation for the defective tractor from the opposite partyNo.3. Accordingly, the case is liable to be dismissed against opposite party No.3.
O R D E R
In the result, the complaint is allowed.Opposite party No.1 & 2 are directed to refund the amount paid by the Complainant to the finance company together with the amount of insurance premium paid with interest @9% per annum from the date of payment till realization in full.The opposite party No.1 and 2 are further directed to jointly and severally pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only to the Complainant as cost of litigation and compensation for inconvenience, mental pain, agony etc. Both the opposite party No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable for payment. The case against the opposite party No.3 stands dismissed.Opposite party No.1 and 2 are directed to comply within 30(thirty) days of receipt of copy of the judgment and order.
Given under our hands and seal of this Forum this 15th day of May, 2019.
Dictated and corrected by:
(A.DEVEE) (A. DEVEE)
President President
Dist.Consumer D. R Forum District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Sonitpur,Tezpur Sonitpur,Tezpur
We agree:- ( Smt S. Bora) (Sri P.Das)
Member Member
