BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint no. 92 of 2012
Date of Institution: 18.5.2912
Date of Decision: 19.8.2016
Preetpal Singh son of Shri Malkeet Singh R/o Village Mangeaana Tehsil Dabwali District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
- Jagdambey Tractors Opposite Main Power House Barnala Road, Sirsa through its Manager.
- Action Construction Equipment Limited, Tractor Division, Jajru Road, 25 Milestone Mathura Road Ballabhgarh- 121004.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.
Present: B.S,Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Manav Goyal, Advocate for Op no.1
Sh.Aashish Singla, Advocate for Op no.2.
ORDER
The facts arisen out from the present complaint are that :- A tractor DI 450 DC bearing Chasis No. 04104503522, Engine No. 10038155 was purchased by the complainant on 21.1.2011 from OP No. 1 for a sum of Rs, 4,25,000/- . At the time of purchase OP no. 2, has given warranty of two years or up to 2000 running hours. After purchase, complainant noted that the tractor was not working in proper order. Its distributors and lift pump etc. were out of order. The front side of the tractor was out of balance. At the 1925 running hour on dated 14.5.12 gear box of the tractor was broken and the tractor consumed excess mobil oil. On approach to OP no. 1 they repaired the tractor but it became again and again out of the order. Hence this complaint.
2. On notice, ops appeared and contested the case by filing their written versions. OP no. 1 replied that complainant never reported such defects to the Op as alleged in the complaint. It is further replied that complainant availed the services of the tractor from the Op no.1 on 11.4.2011 at 700 hours; on 20.6.2011 at 930 hours; on 8.6.2011 at 1180 hours; on 27.6.2011 at 1300 hours; on 17.8.2011/ on 15.11.2011 at 1420 hours; on 28.12.2911 at 1770 hours and on 19.3.2012 at 1870 hours and he never reported the alleged defects. Whereas the Op no. 2 replied that complainant is a contractor and using the tractor for commercial purposes by engaging several persons as driver/cleaner etc. and he himself breached the terms and conditions of the warranty. It is further replied that there is no manufacturing defect in the tractor and there is no deficiency in service on their behalf. It is further replied that OP No. 2 sold the tractor to OP No. 1 on 30.4.10 for Rs. 3,51,669/- and OP No. 1 received delivery on 15.5.10 and the tractor was used as the reports of services, job cards and it become out of warranty on 21.1.2011. OP No. 2 further replied that free services of the tractor had been effected from 16.6.10 to 14.2.12. Both the Ops further denied the remaining allegations of the complainant.
3. By way of evidence complainant produced his affidavit Ex. CW1/A, photo copy of bill Ex. C1, photo copy of letter Ex.C2, photo copy of sale certificate Ex. C2/A, photo copy of certificate of manufacture Ex. C3, whereas the Ops produced their affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A, photo copies of job cards Ex.R1 to Ex. R8, photo copy of warranty policy Ex.R8, copy of resolution Ex.R10, photo copy of identity card Ex. R1, photo copy of service coupons Ex. R12 to Ex. R27, photo copy of service register Ex. R28, photo copy of bill Ex. R29 and photo copies of service book Ex. R30 to Ex R32.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
5. From the perusal of record and hearing of arguments it reveals that initially OP No. 2 sold the tractor to OP No 1 on 30.4.2010 and OP No. 1 sold the tractor to complainant on 21.1.2011. From the various job cards placed on record as Ex. R1 to Ex R8, it is proved on record that complainant never pointed out the alleged defects in the tractor and all the services provided by OP No. 1 to the complainant during the period 11.4.11 to 19.3.12 were with his full satisfaction. Complainant also failed to prove the alleged defects in the tractor through any technically expert report.
6. As a result of above discussion we are of the considered view that complainant failed to bring on the allegations of the complaint and Ops successfully proved their versions by producing reliable and cogent evidence. As such, complaint is hereby dismissed but no order as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties under Sub Rule 9 of Rule 4 of the Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, 2004. File be consigned to the records.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 19.8.2016 Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
