BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.330 of 2015

Date of Instt. 07.08.2015

Date of Decision : 29.08.2016

Shree Ram Mohan aged about 55 years son of Baldev Raj Mohan R/o VPO Lambra, Tehsil & District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.Kailash Auto World, Authorized Dealer New Holland Tractors, Old GT Road, Bidhipur Railway Crossing, Jalandhar through its Authorized Signatory.

2.New Holland Tractors, Head Office:-Plot No.09, Suit No.301, Copia Corporate Suite Josola District Centre, New Delhi-110025, through its Authorized Signatory.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: None for the complainant.

Sh.SK Kapur Adv., counsel for OP No.1.

Sh.HR Soni Adv., counsel for OP No.2.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of 'The Consumer Protection Act' against the opposite parties (hereinafter called as OPs) on the averments that the complainant purchased new Holland Tractor 3130 bearing registration No.PB-08-BP-4331 from OP No.1 vide invoice No.11 dated 4.5.2010 for a sum of Rs.4,15,000/-. Complainant submitted that on 1.6.2010 the said tractor gave trouble in oil box as its engine oil leaked from the box. The complainant approached OP No.1. OP No.1 removed the defect and put gear oil and charged Rs.4750/-. On 17.9.2010, the OP No.1 called the complainant on telephone for free first service of the vehicle. The complainant handed over the tractor at the workshop of the OP No.1 for free service and the OP No.1 charged Rs.646/- despite the fact that the service was free. The complainant further alleged that on 25.11.2010 the said tractor again gave same problem and the tractor was left at the workshop of OP No.1 and the mechanic again removed the said defect and charged Rs.90/- from the complainant. Thereafter, the OP No.1 detained the tractor of the complainant for more than 15 days. The complainant submitted that he is doing business of building material, shuttering and hardware and used the tractor for that purpose. So, he suffered huge loss. The OP No.1 for the service and repair of the aforesaid tractor charged Rs.11,081/- from the complainant for the period from 1.6.2010 to 17.1.2011. However, the complainant later on found that the bills mentioned in this ledger account have already been paid to the OP No.1 on different dates. In this way, the OP No.1 charged the same bills twice. Thereafter, the OP No.1 issued job card No.3002 dated 17.1.2011 and charged Rs.2595/- from the complainant vide invoice dated 17.1.2011. The complainant sent tractor to the workshop of OP No.1 on 3.5.2011 and the OP No.1 again charged Rs.360/- for service. Again on 12.5.2011, the OP charged Rs.2857/- from the complainant. The complainant further alleged that the OP No.1 also charged Rs.3217/- from the complainant on the basis of ledger account regarding the sale of lubricants from the complainant. The complainant submitted that the OP has thereby charged Rs.15355/- illegally from the complainant during this period from 4.5.2010 to 31.3.2012. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,15,355 alongwith litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, the OPs appeared through counsels and filed written replies. In its written reply OP No.1 pleaded that the present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. The complainant purchased the tractor in question from OP in the year 2010 vide invoice dated 4.5.2010. The warranty of the vehicle has expired in the year 2012. All the amounts charged from the complainant were for the spare parts changed or for the sale of lubricants etc which are not covered in the free service. The warranty of two years of the vehicle in question expired on 4.5.2012. OP No.1 further submitted that the complainant has been running business of transportation of goods, building material, shuttering under the name and style of his firm M/s Mohan Cement Store, Lambra, District Jalandhar. OP No.1 further submitted that the complainant has purchased as many as five tractors from OP i.e. tractors chasis Nos.6131042, 6136885, 2132029, 2112712, 2138801 and all these tractors are being used by complainant for commercial purpose. Whenever, complainant brought the tractor to the OP No.1 workshop with any complaint, the same was rectified and the tractor was handed over to the complainant fully functional and repaired/serviced to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant paid the amount whatever was due and chargeable from the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy.

3. In its written reply OP No.2 pleaded that the complainant could not point out any manufacturing defect in the tractor in question. OP No.2 is responsible only for the warranty claim and any service related issue. The warranty of the tractor in question has already expired in May 2012. So, no claim or any deficiency of service can be claimed by the complainant against the OP No.2.

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed his evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-22 and closed evidence. Further learned counsel for OP No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP2/A and closed evidence.

6. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.

7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased new Holland Tractor 3130 bearing registration No.PB-08-BP-4331 from OP No.1 vide invoice No.11 dated 4.5.2010 Ex.C1 for a sum of Rs.4,15,000/-. Complainant submitted that on 1.6.2010 the said tractor gave trouble in oil box as its engine oil leaked from the box. The complainant approached OP No.1. OP No.1 removed the defect and put gear oil and charged Rs.4750/- vide invoice Ex.C3. On 17.9.2010 the OP No.1 called the complainant on telephone for free first service of the vehicle. The complainant handed over the tractor at the workshop of the OP No.1 for free service and the OP No.1 charged Rs.646/- despite the fact that the service was free. The complainant further alleged that on 25.11.2010 the said tractor again gave same problem and the tractor was left at the workshop of OP No.1 and the mechanic again removed the said defect and charged Rs.90/- from the complainant vide invoice Ex.C6. Thereafter, the OP No.1 detained the tractor of the complainant for more than 15 days. The complainant submitted that he is doing business of building material, shuttering and hardware and used the tractor for that purpose. So, he suffered huge loss. The OP No.1 for the service and repair of the aforesaid tractor charged Rs.11,081/- from the complainant for the period from 1.6.2010 to 17.1.2011 vide ledger account statement Ex.C7. However, the complainant later on found that the bills mentioned in this ledger account have already been paid to the OP No.1 on different dates. In this way, the OP No.1 charged the same bills twice. Thereafter, the OP No.1 issued job card No.3002 dated 17.1.2011 and charged Rs.2595/- from the complainant vide invoice dated 17.1.2011 Ex.C11. The complainant sent tractor to the workshop of OP No.1 on 3.5.2011 and the OP No.1 again charged Rs.360/- for service vide invoice Ex.C8. Again on 12.5.2011, the OP charged Rs.2857/- from the complainant vide invoice Ex.C9. The complainant further alleged that the OP No.1 also charged Rs.3217/- from the complainant on the basis of ledger account regarding the sale of lubricants from the complainant vide ledger account statement Ex.C10. The complainant submitted that the OP has thereby charged Rs.15355/- illegally from the complainant during this period from 4.5.2010 to 31.3.2012. The complainant through this complaint submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.

8. Whereas the case of the OP No.1 is that the present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. The complainant purchased the tractor in question from OP in the year 2010 vide invoice Ex.C1/Ex.OP5 dated 4.5.2010. The warranty of the vehicle has expired in the year 2012. All the amounts charged from the complainant were for the spare parts changed or for the sale of lubricants etc which are not covered in the free service. The warranty of two years of the vehicle in question expired on 4.5.2012. Whereas the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 16.8.2015 i.e. after a lapse of a period of more than three years. OP No.1 further submitted that the complainant has been running business of transportation of goods, building material, shuttering under the name and style of his firm M/s Mohan Cement Store, Lambra, District Jalandhar and the complainant himself has admitted that he used this tractor for carrying building material, shuttering and hardware in para No.3 of his complaint. Not only this, the complainant has purchased as many as five tractors from OP, the details of which are given in the para No.9 of the written reply i.e. tractors chasis Nos.6131042, 6136885, 2132029, 2112712, 2138801 and all these tractors are being used by the complainant for commercial purpose. So, the complainant is not consumer under 'The Consumer Protection Act'. Whenever, the complainant brought the tractor to the OP No.1 workshop with any complaint, the same was rectified and the tractor was handed over to the complainant fully functional and repaired/serviced to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant paid the amount whatever was due and chargeable from the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy and the amount was paid by the complainant in the year 2011 but the present complaint has been filed by the complainant in the year 2015 i.e. after a lapse of a period of about four years. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.1 qua the complainant.

9. Whereas the case of the OP No.2 is that the complainant could not point out any manufacturing defect in the tractor in question. OP No.2 is responsible only for the warranty claim and any service related issue. The warranty of the tractor in question has already expired in May 2012. So, no claim or any deficiency of service can be claimed by the complainant against the OP No.2.

10. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased tractor in question from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 4.5.2010 Ex.C1. The gear oil of the tractor of the complainant leaked and the complainant produced the tractor in OP No.1 workshop. Then gear oil was filled and the tractor was made fully functional and the OP No.1 charged only amount of gear oil from the complainant vide invoice Ex.C3. Thereafter, whenever the complainant brought the tractor in question to the OP No.1 for service or for minor repairs, the same were properly repaired and properly serviced and the OP No.1 charged whatever amount was chargeable from the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant got lubricants from the OP for the use of his tractors and made the payment of lubricants to the OP No.1 vide invoice Ex.C7 and Ex.C10. The complainant could not point out any over charging by the OP from the complainant. So, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP qua the complainant.

11. The complainant purchased this tractor from OP No.1 on 4.5.2010 vide invoice Ex.C1. Thereafter, the complainant brought the tractor in question to the workshop of OP No.1 for free service/general service and for minor repairs only and that too upto 5.2.2011 as is evident from the documents produced by the complainant Ex.C3 to Ex.C11. Thereafter, complainant never produced the tractor in question at the workshop of OP No.1 with any complaint. So, the complainant could not point out any defect which was not repairable or which was not repaired by the OPs. The warranty of the vehicle in question expired on 4.5.2012, whereas the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 6.8.2015 i.e. after a lapse of period of more than three years, therefore, the complaint is hopelessly time barred. As such, the present complaint is not maintainable.

12. Apart from this, the complainant has been running business of construction material and he purchased the tractor in question for commercial use i.e. for transportation of his goods i.e. building material, shuttering work, hardware, etc as admitted by the complainant himself in para No.3 of the complaint. The OP has also produced on record documentary evidence to prove that the complainant has purchased five tractors bearing chasis Nos.6131042, 6136885, 2132029, 2112712, 2138801 for running his business under the name and style of his firm M/s Mohan Cement Store, Lambra, District Jalandhar. The complainant could not rebut this averment. All this shows that the complainant has purchased this tractor for business purpose and as such the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer as per the provisions of 'The Consumer Protection Act'. So, this complaint is also not maintainable on this ground.

13. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in this complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost, under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

29.08.2016 Member President