BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 141 of 2015.
Date of Institution : 11.8.2015
Date of Decision : 25.1.2017
Fakir Singh son of Shri Gurbachan Singh, resident of village Jagmalwali, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/s Pragati Agro Sales, Near Tarsem Petrol Pump, Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa, through its Proprietor.
2. New Holland Fiat (India) Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.09, Suite No.301, Copia Corporate Suite, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi- 110 025, 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. Pargat Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. M.K. Singla, Advocate for the opposite party No.2.
Opposite party no.1 exparte.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief, is that complainant as per advice of op no.1 purchased a new Holland 4010 tractor from op no.1 on 12.4.2013 for a sum of Rs.5,10,000/- vide invoice No.004 dated 12.4.2013 with warranty of two years. The tractor is manufactured by no.2. However, after few days of purchase of tractor, it developed defects. Initially, there developed defect in the lift of the tractor. As and when the lift was being raised, the same could not be made down and engineer/ mechanic of op no.1 made some adjustment but the said defect could not be removed and thus, he always faced difficulty in using the lift of the tractor. The op no.1 is located at a distance of about 30-35 Kms. from the residence/ field of complainant. Thereafter, back portion of the tractor started giving huge noise and he reported the matter to op no.1 upon which some repairs/ adjustments were made in the tractor but these defects could not be removed. Although, the said tractor was within warranty period, yet the op no.1 charged consideration from him against repairs of tractor but did not supply bills. He had lodged his protest with op no.1 but of no use. He also reported this matter to the customer care of op no.2 but to no effect. In the meantime, both the mud-guards of the tractor developed rust which led to the deterioration of both the mudguards and tractor started consuming much mobil oil. In January, 2015 he also lodged complaint in this regard to op no.1 and tractor was kept by op no.1 and was inspected by Sh. Parveen Kumar and Sh. Kuldeep Rathi, Engineers of the company who took photographs of damaged mudguards. The complainant visited the op no.1 many times for taking delivery of tractor but all the times op no.1 put off the matter on one pretext or the other. In March, 2015 the op no.1 stated that if he wants to get changed the mudguards of the tractor, then he will have to pay the cost for one mudguard and then both the mudguards will be replaced but complainant refused to accept the proposal as tractor was in warranty period. The op no.1 got elapsed the warranty of tractor by keeping the tractor with it unnecessarily and in April, 2015 when its warranty period had elapsed, the tractor was returned to complainant in defective condition and refused to do anything in the matter. The tractor has manufacturing defect because the company has used highly inferior quality parts and same requires full replacement, otherwise he is entitled to refund of price of the tractor alongwith interest. The complainant has requested the ops in this regard many times but they did not pay any heed to the same. The complainant also got served a legal notice upon ops on 16.2.2015 but of no use and a week back, the ops have refused to admit his claim. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written version taking certain preliminary objections that complainant has no cause of action against answering op for filing the present complaint with amended title and same is not maintainable in the eyes of law and name of answering op is to be deleted at the very outset. The complainant purchased the tractor from Hannu Enterprises the then dealer. The privity of contract if any was between complainant and the then dealer and manufacturer. The answering op was not dealer when the complainant purchased the tractor and cannot be held responsible for any defect in the tractor. It has been submitted that answering op was appointed dealer on 27th May, 2013, therefore, question of complainant visiting answering op in April, 2013 does not arise. For any complaint in the tractor, the complainant was supposed to contact the then dealer or manufacturer. Upon being asked by the manufacturer, the complainant brought his tractor to dealership of answering op on 1.8.2013 for availing service. Thereafter, the complainant visited workshop of answering op periodically for service and repairs under warranty. He was attended by mechanics and engineers of manufacturer and every time tractor was repaired to the satisfaction of complainant free of cost. The company engineers often found lacking in maintenance of tractor on the part of complainant. Even then the complainant was charged for filters and lubricants only that were not covered under warranty. On a couple of occasions, complainant did not make full payment of these consumable items out of greed and obstinacy. At one time, the hour meter was found tempered and it proved ulterior motives and dishonest thinking of complainant. The complainant never visited workshop of answering op nor he reported any fault in factor after March, 2015. Fault about mudguards if any was attended by the company engineers. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 appeared and filed written version submitting therein that complainant has not annexed report of any expert with regard to the allegation of manufacturing defect in the tractor. As per the terms of warranty, the answering op is not liable for any replacement or defects arising due to the negligence practiced by complainant which includes non following of the mandatory service schedule, mishandling of tractor. The complainant always used the tractor carelessly, negligently, further since the day of its purchase i.e. on 12.4.2013, the complainant had not availed first two free services and he for the very first time brought his tractor at the workshop of M/s Pragati Agro Sales i.e. the existing authorized dealer of answering op for availing 3rd free service on 1.8.2013 and at that time, the tractor has already been plied for 687 hours and service to his tractor has been properly done to his satisfaction for which he signed the job card. Thereafter, the complainant again brought the tractor for second time on 7.8.2013 and problem in the hydraulic was fully rectified free of cost and as a part of good gesture op no.1 had also given Rs.2000/- cash discount on hydraulic oil. Then he had brought his tractor without any complaint on 13.11.2013 with 1029 hours and had availed oil service only. As per the service specification after every 1000 hours, the diesel filter and hydraulic filter is required to be replaced by the complainant while availing service at 1029 hours for the reason best known to him had refused to replace the required filters. Thereafter, he had brought tractor on 7.4.2014 after running of 1710 hours for oil service without having any complaint. Despite violations of the warranty policy, complainant was provided satisfactory service. Then the complainant has issued legal notice and as a matter of consumer care and concern the complaint was attended by the engineer and mechanics of M/s Pragati Agro Sales and once again satisfactory service was provided free of cost. The complainant himself signed a satisfaction note and job card dated 11.3.2015. The complainant brought the tractor for availing service on 9.3.2015 and hour meter of tractor recorded running hours 1256 despite the fact that one year prior to the same, the tractor has already been plied for 1710 hours. This fact was immediately brought into the notice of complainant and he acknowledged that he has availed services of private mechanic and the meter was reversed by that mechanic. However, he requested the answering op and op no.1 to repair the hydraulic of the tractor and they had set right the same free of cost by taking note of 1257 hours and complainant acknowledged the same. The so called defect arose in the hydraulic because of irregular service and for want of replacement of required parts on regular intervals. Moreover, the tractor after 9.3.2015 run more than 1150 hours and the tractor was not reported for any problem or any service which in itself shows that there are no defects in the tractor and it is the complainant who is very much negligent in handing his tractor. With these averments, dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.
4. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill Ex.C1, legal notice Ex.C2, postal receipts Ex.C3 to Ex.C5 and copy of registration certificate Ex.C6. On the other hand, ops tendered affidavit Ex.R1, copies of various job cards Ex.R2 to Ex.R5, copy of satisfaction note dated 11.3.2015 Ex.R6.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. There is nothing on file to suggest that tractor in question is having any manufacturing defect. However, from the various job cards placed on file by the ops it is evident that complainant has been making complaints to the ops about hydraulic/lift problem etc. in the warranty period. According to the opposite parties the above said faults occurred in the tractor due to own fault of the complainant as mentioned above. However, the ops have not explained and clarified about the problem of mud-guards raised by the complainant. In any case, as the complainant is alleging certain defects in the warranty period, therefore, the opposite parties are liable to repair the tractor and to make it defect free without charging any amount from the complainant. As such, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to repair the tractor in question and to make it defect free after replacement of mudguards etc. and other defective parts, if any free of costs within a period of two months from today. Both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to comply this order. 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:25.1.2017. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
