Haryana

StateCommission

A/28/2015

ESCORTS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAGDISH CHANDER &ANOTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

GEETA GULATI

14 Jul 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :        28 of 2015

Date of Institution:      12.01.2015

Date of Decision :       14.07.2015

 

Escorts Limited, 15/5, Mathura Road, Faridabad, District Faridabad, through its authorized signatory Mr. Prabhat Kumar.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

Versus

 

1.      Jagdish Chander, Resident of Village Dhudianwali, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.

Respondent-Complainant

 

2.      Zamindara Tractor Workshop, G.T. Road, Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa through its proprietor.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party No.1

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Ms. Geeta Gulati, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Sushil Kumar Verma, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                             (Service of respondent No.2 dispensed with).

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

                   Escorts Limited-opposite party No.2 is in appeal against the order dated 27^th November, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Sirsa. 

2.      Jagdish Chander-Complainant (respondent No.1 herein) purchased a tractor of Powertrac-445 make from Zamindara Tractor Workshop-Opposite Party No.1 (respondent No.2) on July 5^th, 2006 for Rs.3,05,770/-. The tractor was manufactured by M/s Escorts Limited-Opposite Party No.2.

3.      He filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging the following manufacturing defects in the tractor:-

(i)      Leakage in the seal of Oil Pump

(ii)      Alignment was not proper

(iii)     Excessive fuel consumption

(iv)    Three nuts of front Axle were missing

He also stated that at the time of purchase of the tractor, the opposite party No.1 did not supply the ‘Farmer’s Kit’ to the complainant.

 4.     M/s Escorts Limited contested complaint by filing reply. It was stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the tractor. The tractor was sold to the complainant after Pre-Delivery Inspection (PDI).  The complainant brought the tractor to the workshop of opposite party No.1 after one week of its purchase, that is, July 12^th, 2006 and nut of front axle was found missing and the same was fastened free of cost vide Repair Order No.747 (Exhibit R-2).  The tractor was brought to the workshop of opposite party No.1 for free service three times, that is, August 5^th, October 5^th, 2006 and January 8^th, 2007 and after service the tractor was handed over to the customer to his satisfaction vide Exhibits R-3, R-4 and R-5 respectively. The complainant did not visit the dealer after third free service. He never made any complaint regarding alignment of tractor and high diesel consumption etcetera. So far as the supply of Farmer’s Kit, it was not to be supplied free of cost with the tractor.  However, Owner’s Manual and Toolkit were supplied to the complainant.  

5.      Vide order dated April 28^th, 2010, the District Forum directed The Director/Incharge Officer/Expert of the tractor Training Institute to examine the tractor and to report on or before August 11^th, 2010.  Accordingly, the tractor was inspected by Shri R.M. Tiwari, Agri. Engineer (w/s), office of Director, Northern Region Farm Machinery Training and Testing Institute, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India and submitted report dated August 17^th, 2010. The observations made in the report are as under:-

                   “4.     Observations:

1. The physical condition of the tractor was found normal. No manufacturing defect is noticed.
2. No improper alignment of tractor and implement was noticed. The maneuverability of tractor with implement was satisfactory.
3. The fuel consumption of the tractor was measured as 5.1 to 6.0 litres per hour which is well within the fuel consumption of tractor tested at Budni Institute vide test report No.T-578/1076(2007).The fuel consumption of the tractor tested at Budni Institute for different operations was 4.25 to 6.72 litres/hour.
4. During field performance evaluation of the tractor, sudden dropping of the engine speed at momentary excessive load due to more penetration of cultivator shovels was noticed. The dropping of engine speed at one instance lead to the stalling of engine. It indicates the erratic functioning of the fuel injection pump and the Governor. It needs to be thoroughly checked and repaired by the manufacturer.”

                  

6.      During the hearing it was brought to the notice of the District Forum that the tractor in question had been sold by the complainant to somebody else.

7.      After evaluating the evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint and issued direction to the opposite parties as under:-

                   “14.   Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed with a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of sale dated 05.10.2006, till payment.  The complainant is also hereby awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- for his harassment, mental agony etc and litigation expenses of Rs.1100/- against the opposite parties who shall be jointly and severally liable. Since primarily liability is of opposite party No.2, so it is ordered that in case of compliance of this order by opposite party No.1, then opposite party No.1 shall be duly indemnified by opposite party No.2, i.e. to pay that money to opposite party No.1 with interest @ of 9% per annum.”

8.      The report dated August 17^th, 2010 extracted in paragraph No.5 of this order states that there was no manufacturing defect in the tractor. Otherwise too it is an admitted fact that the complainant had sold the tractor during the pendency of the complaint without seeking permission from the District Forum. So he does not fall under the definition of consumer. Support to this view can be had from the judgment rendered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in Revision Petition No.2562 of 2012, Tata Motors Limited and another vs. Hazoor Maharaj Baba Des Rajji Chela Baba Dewa Singhji (Radha Swami) and another, decided on September 25^th, 2013.

9.      In view of the above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant-opposite party against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 14.07.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL