DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Execution App.No.88
Instituted on: 11.07.2016
Decided on: 02.02.2017
Gurnam Singh son of Sukhdev Singh, resident of Benra, Tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur (Punjab).
…Complainant/DH
Versus
1. John Deere India Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, Off Pune Road, Sanswari (Pune) Maharashtra-412 208.
2. Zamindara Autos, through its Managing Director, Malerkotla Road, Dhuri, Punjab.
…Opposite parties
For the complainant : Shri Yogesh Gupta, Adv.
For opposite parties : Shri Mohinder Ahuja, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Gurnam Singh, complainant/Decree Holder (referred to as DH in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party/Judgment debtor (referred to as JDs in short) on the ground that the complainant filed complaint number 361 on 2.7.2014 which was decided by this Forum vide its order dated 3.12.2014, whereby the OPs were directed to “replace the diesel supply pump and lift pump of the tractor in question free of cost and further to make the tractor fully functional without charging any amount. The Ops were also directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses. The order was to be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of the order”. Further it is averred that the JD filed appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission and the same was dismissed on 4.1.2016.
2. Further case of the DH is that the tractor in question was handed over to the OP on 29.3.2016 for compliance of the order and the OP returned the tractor on 2.6.2016 without compliance of the order as the Ops have not made the tractor functional because same problem still subsists in the tractor. The position of lift pump is same and is not working properly. Engine causes excess pollution flumes. As such, it is stated that the OP has not replaced the diesel supply pump and lift pump of tractor. As such, the complainant/DH has prayed that the OP/JD has failed to comply the order and has further prayed that the JD be directed to comply with the orders and further be punished according to section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
3. In reply to the execution application, the Op/JD has taken some preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts and that the execution application is not maintainable. It is submitted that First appeal No.27/2015, 35/2015 and 447 of 2015 were preferred against the said orders before the Hon’ble State Commission, which was decided vide order dated 4.1.2016. It is stated that the complainant appears to be a chronic litigant who is in habit of filing the false cases. The perusal of the order dated 4.10.2016 passed in FA number 447 of 2015 supported with MA No.818 of 2015 reveals that the Hon’ble Commission had given categorical finding that the appeal was filed just to counter the appeals of the Ops and accordingly application for condonation of delay was also dismissed. On merits, it is stated that the amounts have already been paid to the complainant, which the complainant has concealed this fact in the present execution application. It is further stated that the orders of this Forum have been fully complied with. The complainant brought the tractor to the workshop of OP number 2 on 29.3.2014 at 4.00 PM and the tractor was returned to the complainant on 2.6.2016 after compliance of the order passed by this Forum. It is further stated that the OP number 2 had delivered the standby tractor bearing registration number PB-13-AF-6230 to the complainant during the period 29.3.2016 to 2.6.2016 on free of cost basis for their utilisation. The OP has also produced job card number 1416 dated 29.3.2016 and the copy of invoice dated 2.4.2016 vide which the fuel injunction pump, dated 9.12.2015 lift pump already in stock was supplied by OP number 1 to the OP for fitment in the tractor of the complainant. As such, it is stated that the tractor in question was made fully functional and the complainant had received the tractor in road worthy condition. It is stated that there is no defect in the tractor at all. The other allegations levelled in the execution application have been denied and has prayed for dismissal of the application with special costs.
4. We have very carefully perused the execution application, reply thereto and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the execution application deserves dismissal as the order under execution already stands complied with by the OP/JDs.
4A. We have perused the copy of job order number 1416 dated 29.03.2016 which shows that the DH brought the tractor in question to the workshop of Op number 2 for repairs as ordered by this Forum vide its order dated 3.12.2014 and the same was returned to the DH on 2.6.2016 as is evident from the receipt which show that the tractor in question was given to the complainant/DH after repairs and stand by tractor was taken back by the Ops from the complainant. The learned counsel for the Op/JD has also produced on record the copy of bill showing that the fuel injunction pump replaced against the tractor of the complainant was also in their stocks. On the other hand, the stand of the complainant/DH is that the order dated 3.12.2014 has not been complied with by the OP/JD and to support such a contention, he has also relied upon the expert report of Nirmal Sigh son of Naranjan Singh, Dhuri, wherein he has stated that he is running the tractor workshop in the name and style of Somal Tractor Workshop at Dhuri since 1993 and has stated that there are defects in the tractor in question such as lift, diesel pump and engine of the tractor has also problems. But, we are unable to go with such a contention of Shri Nirmal Singh, as he is not a qualified mechanic/engineer and even the qualification of Nirmal Singh has also not been mentioned nor he is said to be an automobile engineer. As such, we are unable to go with such a contention of the said Nirmal Singh that the tractor in question is defective or has a manufacturing defect. Moreover, the only question which arises before us for determination is whether the OP/JD has complied with the order dated 3.12.2014. In this respect, we may mention that the Op/JD has clearly complied with the orders and have handed over the tractor in question after fully repairing the same and replacing the diesel supply pump of the tractor in question free of cost. It is worth mentioning here that the learned counsel for the OP/JDs has vehemently contended that even during the present proceedings the tractor in question was again repaired to the entire satisfaction of the complainant/DH vide job order sheet dated 9.1.2017. In the circumstances, we feel that the OP/JD has fully complied with the orders dated 3.12.2014 of this Forum and nothing remains to be done. As such, we are of the considered opinion that since the OP/JD has already paid the amount as ordered and have repaired the tractor fully to the entire satisfaction of the complainant, we feel that nothing remains to be done on the part of the OP/JDs.
5. In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the execution application and the same is dismissed accordingly as the order under execution has already been complied with fully and nothing is required to be done. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
February 2, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
