Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1240/2015

Major Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

International Tractor Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri S.K.Garg

18 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                              

                                                Complaint No.  1240

                                                Instituted on:    09.10.2015

                                                Decided on:       18.08.2016

 

Major Singh son of Gamdoor Singh, resident of Village Ubhawal, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.             International Tractors Limited, Village Chakk Gujjran, Post Office Pipalwala 146 022 Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur Punjab through its MD/ Authorised Signatory.

2.             M/s. Kissan Tractors, Mehlan Road, Sangrur through its authorised signatory.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri S.K. Garg, Adv.

For OP No.1             :               Shri V.K.Singla, Adv.

For OP No.2             :               Shri B.S.Phumanwal, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

               

Order by : K.C.Sharma, Member

 

1.             Shri Major Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased a Sonalika DI-60RX tractor from OP number 2 vide delivery challan number 258 dated 15.4.2014 for Rs.6,45,000/-. It is further averred that at the time of purchase of the tractor in question the OP number 2 charged an amount of Rs.6,45,000/- on account of tractor and further Rs.20,000/- for registration etc, but the OP number 2 did not issue any receipt for Rs.20,000/-.  It is further averred that when the tractor was used by the complainant, its engine started to give the heating problem and the water of the radiator also use to boil after running the tractor for some time and further there was excessive consumption of the engine oil.  As such, the complainant approached the OP number 2 and lodged the complaint on 24.4.2014, but the OP number 2 though stated that they will remove the defect in the engine, but nothing was done.   It is further averred that again on 21.5.2014, the complainant brought the tractor in question to OP number 2 with the same complaint, but nothing was done except an assurance.   It is further averred that on 30.3.2015 the complainant again went to the OP number 2 with the tractor in question and the OP number 2 got the tractor in question checked from Kulwant Singh and Deepak Sharma, mechanics of the OPs, but again the tractor was returned without any repairs. It is further averred that the OP number 2 supplied the defective tractor to the complainant as such, the complainant requested the OPs to replace the same with a new one, but all in vain, despite the fact the complainant approached OP number 2 and lastly on 2.9.2015 the OP number 2 refused to do anything.  It is further averred in the complaint that the tractor in question has run only 1167 hours and is under warranty conditions. The complainant also got checked the tractor in question from the mechanics, who stated that the defect can only be known after fully opening the engine, which the complainant refused to do so.  The grievance of the complainant is that the OPs have supplied the complainant the defective tractor, which requires to be replaced with a new one.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to replace the tractor in question with a new one or in the alternative to refund to the complainant the purchase price of the tractor i.e. Rs.6,65,000/- along with interest from the date of purchase and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts, that the complainant has dragged the OPs into unwanted litigation. On merits, it  is stated that the complainant has purchased the tractor in question from OP number 2, but it has been denied that the complainant ever approached the OP number 2. It is further stated that the Op number 1 is the manufacturer of the tractor with standardized techniques and quality control system of ISO 9001 and 14001 and after proper testing and quality checks the tractors are sent to the dealers for sale. It is denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the tractor. It is stated further that even then the OP is ready to get the said tractor checked from their engineers/foremen at their well equipped dealership in the presence of the complainant.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, it is stated that the complainant purchased the tractor in question after paying the amount and all the documents were delivered to the complainant. It is further stated that the OP is authorised dealer for sale and service of Sonalika international range of tractors and the OP number 1 is working under the name and style of M/s. Kissan Tractors, Mehlan Road, Sangrur. It is stated that the complainant brought the tractor in question to OP number 2 on 24.4.2014 for service as per the directions in the manual of the tractor and the OP number 2 provided the good services by servicing the tractor in question. It is further admitted that the complainant brought the tractor in question on 21.5.2014 and 30.3.2015 thereafter and the OP number 2 provided the good services to the complainant. There is no problem in the tractor as alleged by the complainant at the time of service and he never told any manufacturing defect at the time of service in the tractor. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of jamabandi of Ubhawal, Ex.C-2 copy of delivery challan, Ex.C-3 copy of registration certificate, Ex.C-4 copy of letter dated 2.9.2015, Ex.C-5 copy of bill dated 28.3.2015, Ex.C-6 copy of bill, Ex.C-7 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 postal receipts, Ex.C-10 acknowledgement, Ex.C-11 copy of tractor history sheet, Ex.C-12  original operation manual, Ex.C-13 copy of slip given by the OP, Ex.C-14 affidavit of complainant, Ex.C-15 affidavit of Mann Singh, Ex.C-16 affidavit of Kulwinder Singh, Ex.C-17 copy of receipt dated 16.4.2016, Ex.C-18 copy of receipt dated 14.4.2016, Ex.C-21 copies of photographs, Ex.C-22 to Ex.C-23 copies of bank statements and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.Op1/1 inspection report along with annexure A/A-1 and A-1 to Annexure A-10 and Annexure B-1(CD) and Ex.OP1/2 affidavit closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.Op2/1 affidavit, Ex.OP2/2 copy of tractor history sheet, Ex.Op2/3 copy of dealership certificate, Ex.Op2/4 copy of authority letter and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.               Ex.C-2 is the copy of the delivery challan issued by OP number 2 to the complainant for sale of the tractor in question to the complainant which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the tractor in question and availed the services of the OP number 2, which has been manufactured by OP number 1.  It is further an admitted fact that tractor in question was having a warranty/guarantee of 18 months or 1500 hours of operation whichever occurs earlier from the date when the products are delivered new to the original retail customer and for the fuel injection pump and battery warranty will be upto 12 months or 1000 hours of operation, whichever occurs earlier, as is evident from the warranty clause mentioned in the operation manual, which is on record as Ex.C-12.

 

7.             It is the specific allegation of the complainant that when the tractor in question was used after its purchase, it got heated and the water from the radiator started boiling and there was huge consumption of the engine oil resulting decrease of engine oil.  The complainant had been visiting the OP number 2 and had brought the defect in his knowledge but the OP number 2 did not remove the defects, but done routine service of the tractor in question. The OP number 1 had submitted that the tractors are thoroughly checked by their engineers before the delivery to the dealers for sale. We have gone through the operation manual which is Ex.C-12 on record and find that form number 48129 in it is the pre delivery inspection report and the same is blank.  So, it seems that the tractor had not been inspected neither by OP number 1 nor by OP number 2 before delivery otherwise the manual would have been filled by the engineers before delivery.

 

8.             Further we find that the tractor delivery challan Ex.C-2 is dated 15.4.2014 whereas the certificate of registration of the tractor document Ex.C-3 shows that the date of manufacturing of the tractor is 07/2014. This is not possible that a tractor which has been manufactured in July, 2014 has been sold in April, 2014.

 

9.             The complainant in support of his version has placed on record document Ex.C-4 and in this document the OP number 2 has admitted the defect in the tractor on 02.09.2015 and had assured to remove the same free of cost and all this shows that the tractor had manufacturing defect.

 

10.           During the proceedings, the counsel for OP number 1 had requested that the tractor be allowed to be inspected by the engineers of the OP number 1 and the same was allowed. The report submitted by OP number 1 is Ex.OP1/1 and from it we find that the same has been prepared by the mechanical engineer and not by the automobile engineer.  The report has only been prepared on physical checking of the tractor as there is no evidence to the effect that the tractor was used in the fields and farming work was done to know whether there is any manufacturing defect in the tractor or not.  In this report also, it has been admitted that there was less oil in the engine of the tractor in question.

 

11.           We have also gone through the expert report submitted by the complainant in the form of affidavit and the same is Ex.C-15 on record.  On the perusal of this report, we find that the expert had spent a very long time with the tractor and had given his report after cultivating the land with the cultivators. The tractor was also used in the tube ell to irrigate the land and the expert mechanic who had vast experience in the field as per document Ex.C-10, Ex.C-20 and Ex.C-21 and had found that there was smell of mobile oil burning and the tractor started feeling pressure while put to work.  The black smoke also come out from the silencer when the tractor was in operation.   As such, we find that the expert had prepared the report in a very systematic manner and the tractor has been checked on all counts.  The expert after giving the detailed report has held that the tractor was having manufacturing defect.  It has also been mentioned in the report that his son, who is a mechanical engineer also assisted him in his work.

 

12.           Since it is an admitted case that the complainant approached the OP number 2 for getting the tractor in question repaired as admitted by Op number 1, as such, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the OPs be directed to replace the vehicle in question with a new one or to refund the price of the vehicle along with interest.  To support such a contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has cited M/s. Palam Tractors versus Shri Jamir Ahmmed 2010(2) CPC 676 (HP State Commission), wherein it has been held that despite replacement of engine of the three wheeler, the defect could not be removed, as such, it was ordered for replacement of the engine of the vehicle and further awarded compensation for harassment. As such, we feel that the above said case law is fully applicable in the facts of the present case, as such, present complaint deserves to be allowed as it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, as the OP number 2 has miserably failed to set right the engine of the vehicle in question.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant has cited Mahinda and Mahindra Ltd. Rudra Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. and others versus Chandan Mondal and others 2013(4) CPJ 486, wherein the complainant visited a number of times to get the tractor repaired during the warranty period and the job cards produced ample evidence to prove that the vehicle in question did have defects and complainant was put to hardship on account of that. It is futile to go into minute/extreme technicalities in order to establish whether the defects pointed out qualifies to be classified as manufacturing defect or not.  It is a hard fact that the consumer, who is a farmer, was put to a lot of mental agony, harassment by the purchase of the said defective vehicle. Hence, it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission there was no fault committed by State Commission and the impugned order of the State Commission was upheld.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further cited Malabar Motors versus K.V.Jayarajan and another 2013(4) CPJ 329 (NC), wherein it has been upheld the order of the State Commission returning the cost of the vehicle with interest and compensation as the vehicle in question was sent for repairs for number of times to the petitioner as number of defects were there. 

13.           In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to replace the engine of the tractor in question with a new one with a fresh warranty.  The OPs shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.11,000/- in lieu of litigation expenses.

 

14.                   This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 18, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member