BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 76 of 2015.
Date of Institution : 19.3.2013
Date of Decision : 6.9.2016
Jagroop Singh, aged 50 years son of Sh. Sampuran Singh, resident of village Lohgarh, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Jagdambay Tractors, opp. Main Power House, Barnala Road Sirsa (Haryana) through its Prop./ partner/ Manager.
2. Action Construction Equipment Limited, Dudholla Link Road, village Dudholla, Distt. Palwal (Haryana) through its Prop./ partner/ 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. B.S. Thind, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Manav Goyal, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant purchased ACE tractor model DT450DCNPIS149x28 from opposite party no.1 vide bill No.70 dated 31.3.2011 for an amount of Rs.4,75,000/- and op no.1 had given every type of assurance regarding its best quality and working and had given guarantee/ warranty. However, from the very beginning, the tractor started creating troubles and its diesel pump became out of order. Then complainant approached to op no.1 and told him about the said problem upon which op no.1 stated that it is a minor problem and they changed the diesel pump, plunger and all the equipment of pump set, but despite that problem was not removed. The op no.1 assured the complainant that all these problems will be removed after all the three services. Then on the asking of op no.1, the complainant got serviced his tractor for the first time on 28.3.2011, for the second time on 28.5.2011 and third service was conducted on 23.8.2011 i.e. after gap of very short period of every service. Thereafter, at the time of 4th /5th service, its clutch plates were failed and there was leakage in the main seal. The clutch plates were also replaced but the leakage problem is still existing. It is further averred that once power steering problem also came in the tractor and for removing the said problem, the op no.1 demanded Rs.10,000/- from the complainant and they also told that there is no guarantee of it after repair. Then complainant got removed the said problem from some another mechanic at Mandi Dabwali. There is also problem in sleeb and pistol due to which the tractor failed to do the work of cultivation. At the time of purchase, the op no.1 told that this is 45 horse power tractor and it will do the work of upto 13 cultivator but it is doing the work of less than 11 cultivator. There was gear box problem for two times and complainant had to spend Rs.2500/- for repairing the same. The complainant is filling simple oil in the tractor for the last more than one and half years and has spent more than Rs.17,000/- on it. The complainant also got done the work of lifting, breaks, battery but same are still not working properly. The complainant visited the op no.1 for about 7/8 times for repair of the tractor and also got repaired it 4/5 times from outside mechanics. Lastly when complainant visited op no.1 and asked him that he had given a defective tractor to him and requested him to replace the same with new one, then op no.1 started to quarrel with him and also abused him and refused to do so. The complainant since the date of purchase of said tractor is suffering mental tension, agony, harassment and financial loss etc. due to the act of ops for which he is entitled to the compensation of Rs.one lac. besides the replacement of the tractor and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.6500/-. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing joint written statement. It is submitted that after purchase of the above said tractor, the complainant availed services of the tractor from op no.1 on 28.3.2011, 15.4.2011, 28.5.2011, 16.6.2011, 19.6.2011, 27.7.2011, 23.8.2011 and 20.10.2011, but complainant never reported the alleged defects in the tractor. However, the general issues/ minor defects were removed by op no.1 during the above services. The alleged defects never appeared in the tractor. The warranty in respect of the tractor has been cancelled by answering op no.2 because after 20.10.2011, the complainant did not avail the services of the said tractor through the authorized service centre of op no.2 and thereby violated the conditions of the warranty given by the ops. There was no manufacturing defect in the tractor and thus, there is no question of replacement and prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on file his affidavit Ex.PW1, affidavit of Sukhmander Singh Mechanic of Mandi Dabwali as Ex.PW2, affidavit of Sukha Singh Namberdar as Ex.PW3. On the other hand, opposite parties have placed on file affidavit Ex.RW1/A, affidavit Ex.RW2/A and have tendered documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R15.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
5. There is no dispute that the complainant had purchased the tractor in question from opposite party no.1 on 31.3.2011 for a sum of Rs.4,75,000/- vide bill No.70, copy of which has been placed on file by the opposite parties as Ex.R1. The above said tractor is manufactured by opposite party no.2. The complainant is alleging several defects in the tractor from the very beginning and has alleged defect of diesel pump, power steering and capacity of the tractor but in the various job cards done by opposite parties, the complainant has not alleged any such defect and the routine services of the tractor were done by the opposite parties as is evident from job cards placed on file by the opposite parties from Ex.R8 to Ex.R14. There is nothing on record to show that after 20.10.2011 complainant reported any defect in the tractor to the opposite parties rather got repaired it from outside beyond the condition of the warranty given by the opposite parties. Normal wear and tear in the tractor cannot be said as manufacturing defect.
6. Resultantly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 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: 6.9.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
