ORDERS:

Charanjit Singh, President

1        The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 under Section 34, 35and 36  against the opposite party on the allegations that the complainant is farmer by profession. The complainant Jagnam Singh purchased a self propelled combine harvester, Model Kartar 4000, Cutter Bar: 14 ft., Engine: Ashok Leyland, Engine No. LJHM102185, Chassis No. KARAR4000C207870, Tyre Front: 18-4-30, Tyre Rear:9.00-16 on dated 18.03.2020 from the opposite party the above said vehicle is financed with MAGMA FINCORP LTD. At the time of selling the above said vehicle by opposite party to complainant, the opposite party gave assurance that if any defect will occur in the above said vehicle, the same will be repaired or replaced by the opposite party free of cost. From very next month from the purchase of vehicle the wheat harvesting season started i.e. in the month of April 2020. In the starting of season the front tyre got defect/problem in working as a complainant was unable to harvest the crop with his combine harvester. The complainant approached the opposite party to get repair the tyre defect/ problem, but the opposite party did not bother about the same and keep on making lame excuses. The complainant suffered huge financial loss as his purpose to buy combine harvester could not fulfilled. Even he could not arrange his EMI of vehicle. The complainant has to pay interest to the financed company from his own pocket as he could not get profits from the above said vehicle due to the defect in tyres. In the month of August 2020, the complainant again approached the opposite party and requested to repair his vehicle, but the opposite party did not accept his request. The original Registration certificate of vehicle is with the opposite party and when the complainant asked for the same, the opposite party refused to hand over the R.C. to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant served a legal notice dated 18.8.2020 to the opposite party on his above mentioned correct address, in which the complainant requested the opposite party to repair the defect/ problem of his vehicle and to handover the R.C. of his vehicle but the opposite party did not give any response to the legal notice. Due to the above said wrong act and misconduct on part of opposite party, the complainant is still suffering from harassment, mental agony and financial loss. The opposite party is guilty of inefficiency, in-adequacy, imperfection in service, harassment and deficiency in service by not repairing the vehicle and not handing over the R.C. to the complainant till date without any cause or reason for the same.  The complainant has prayed that the opposite party may be directed to repair the vehicle of complainant and prayed Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses. Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex. C-1, Self attested copy of vehicle bill dated 18.3.2020 Ex. C-2, self attested copy of e-way bill Ex. C-3, Self attested copy of Form-20 Ex. C-4, Self attested copy of form 20 Ex. C-5, Self attested copy of certificate inspection of motor vehicle Ex. C-6, Self attested copy of Form-21 Ex. C-7, Self attested copy of Temporary Certificate of Registration Ex. C-8, Self attested copy of Insurance of Vehicle Ex. C-9, Self attested copy of Adhar Card of complainant Ex. C-10, Self attested copy of legal notice dated 18.8.2020 Ex. C-11, Self attested copy of Postal receipt of Legal notice Ex. C-12.   

2        Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite party and opposite party appeared through counsel and filed written version by taking preliminary objections that this commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present false complaint as the opposite party has sold the said combine at Bhadson, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala within the territorial jurisdiction at District Patiala. This fact is mentioned in column Number 10 of warranty card “All the disputes are/ is subjected to Patiala Jurisdiction” The opposite party had issued a warranty card and mentioned in column No. 2 of warranty card tyre, tube will be applicable as provided by the manufacturers from authorized dealers of the manufacturing company and Kartar dealers of the manufacturing company and Kartar Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. will not be held liable for this. The present complaint has not been filed properly and the same is liable to be dismissed. The opposite party has a registered firm and having many partners but the complainant has filed the present complaint against the Kartar Agro Industries and the complainant did not mention the authorized signatory of the firm.  On merits, it was pleaded that the combine has been sold to the complainant and after satisfying the consumer (complainant) delivered the said combine to the complainant and the complainant also checked the combine, engine, machinery, tyre, tube, battery, belt, blades, finger, meter wires, electrical items, all rubber item and wear, tear chains and the complainant signed the warranty card. The complainant complained to the opposite party and he gave the address of the authroised dealer of the tyre company and promised to entertain the complaints but the complainant cannot contact the tyre company. The company used to give the warranty for one season which is duly mentioned in the warranty card at Col. No. 1 But the company assured the complainant, if any, defect in the combine then the opposite party shall repair the said combine. The complainant filed a complaint with regard to defect of the tyres and the company has contacted the manufacturing authorized dealers of tyres but the complainant filed the present false complaint before this commission. The company is still ready to sort out the problem of the complainant. The complainant after purchasing the combine from the opposite party, has delayed the payment of combine for a long time. The complainant used the combine for harvesting crops. No legal notice was received by the opposite party till today. The opposite party has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Alongwith the written version the opposite party has placed on record self attested coy of affidavit Ex. OP-1, Photostat copy of Warranty Card Ex. OP-2, Photostat Copy of Payment Receipt Ex. OP-3.

3        The complainant has filed the rejoinder to the written version filed by the opposite parties and denied all the pleas taken in the written version and reiterated the stand as taken in the complaint.

4        We have heard the Ld. counsel for parties and have also carefully gone through the documents on the file.

5        The combine and harmonious reading of the documents placed on record shows that the complainant has purchased the self propelled combine harvester, Model Kartar 4000 cutter Bar: 14ft, Engine: Ashok Leyland, Engine No. LJHM102185, Chassis No. Kartar4000C207870 tyre Front : 18.4.30, Tyre Rear:-9.00-16 on 18.3.2020 from the opposite party. As per the version of the complainant, the opposite party assured that in case of any defect or problem in the combine harvester machine, they will sort out the defect/ problem. In the month of April 2020, front tyre of combine started some problem in the smooth functioning of machine and the opposite party has not sorted out the said problem after various requests. Opposite party has taken the objections that this complaint is not maintainable at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Tarn Taran. But as the complainant is resident of Tarn Taran, therefore, this Commission at Tarn Taran has got the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.  The opposite party has placed on record the warranty card Ex. OP-2 warranty instructions at serial Number 2 that The warranty for Engine, Tyre, Tube and Battery will be applicable as provided by the manufacturer or from authorized dealer of the manufacturing company and Kartar Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. will not be held liable for this. The complainant has not arrayed the manufacturer of the vehicle in question in the present complaint. Bare perusal of Warranty Card Ex. OP-2 shows that if any, defect occurs to the combine then manufacturer will replace or repair the said combine . According to the opposite party, the complainant was told to visit the tyre company to resolve the issue but the complainant has not placed on record any document which shows that he visited the said tyre company. The complainant has also not produced on record any convincing document regarding loss which he has incurred due to said defect. However, during the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for the complainant admitted that the opposite party has replaced the rims and tyres of the said combine and there is no issue of RC as the complainant has applied new one with the concerned authority. It is pertinent to mention here that the opposite party has sorted out the said problem of the said combine though the complainant has not made manufacturer as necessary party.  Just for the sake of goodwill the opposite party has repaired the vehicle in question to the satisfaction of the complainant, though it was the duty of the manufacturer.  

6        In view of the above discussion, the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the  orders be supplied to the parties as per rules. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission.

23.09.2021