This is an application u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 filed by Bablu Haque wherein it is contended inter alia to the effect that he purchased a tractor from ops on 21.02.2012 having model John Deern SOSSEV 3 (SSUP) being Engine No.PY3029H008764, Chasis No.1 Py-SOSS EK CA-008077 at Rs.7,18,477/- under the financial assistance of Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Co. Ltd., Siliguri. Since purchase the engine of that tractor became highly heated and a huge black smoke gon up from the engine and thus full consumption was made almost double to the real consumption as promised by ops. The complainant informed the matter to ops through op no.2 and made eight times servicing out of those servicing the last servicing was made on 10.10.2012 but to no good effect. Thus the complainant sustained loss of Rs.1,80,000/- due to non-functioning of said tractor. Hence, this case.
Both the ops contested this case by filing written versions and denied all material allegations as alleged against them by the complainant. It is main version of the ops to the effect that whenever the service was provided to this tractor, the necessary satisfactory endorsement of the complainant was made by the complainant on job card. That apart the allegations as made in the complaint are not supported by any cogent and reliable document and so the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as sought for. It is further specifically contended by the op no.2 in the written version to the effect that the tractor was attended by the op no.2 for the routine warranty service in terms of the warranty terms and conditions which governed sale of the tractor to the complainant. That apart the op no.1 issued job card for the said work of installation and the complainant expressed his satisfaction as mentioned in the said Annex-B. In the circumstances, both the ops have prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
Upon the above averments both parties went on hearing with the following points:-
- Is the complainant entitled to get reliefs as sought for?
- To what other relief/reliefs is the complainant entitled to get?
Decision with reasons
Point Nos: 1, 2 & 3 : -
All the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of conversion as they are interlinked and interrelated.
Admittedly, the complainant purchased the tractor in question from op no.1 under the finance provided by Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Co. Ltd., Siliguri. Admittedly since servicing under the guidance of warranty, made by the op no.2 which have been ventilated in the job cards. The job cards vide Annex-B to F contain the endorsement of the complainant with “I am satisfied with the work carried out and thereby taking delivery of the tractor on this day”. Unfortunately, to rebut those endorsement given/put by the complainant are not rebutted by adding any cogent evidence by the ops. Resultantly, the said endorsements relating to satisfaction of servicing remain unrebutted. It reveals in Annex-D(4) i.e. job card dated 01.02.2013 that the complainant being satisfied on the work made by op no.2 over tractor, he, the complainant, took delivery of the said tractor with full satisfaction. But the present case has been filed by the complainant on 14.01.2013 against the ops claiming reliefs with grounds mentioned in the complaint. When the case was filed on 14.01.2013 by complainant claiming reliefs against the ops and when the Annex-D(4) the job card was issued on 01.02.2013 containing the endorsement of the complainant in relation to his satisfaction, we think the adverse inference should be drawn against the complainant. Resultantly, we do hold that the complainant could not satisfy us by adducing any congent material or evidence to get reliefs from this Forum as sought for.
Resultantly, the case is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That the Consumer Case No.02/2013 be and the same is dismissed on contest but considering the circumstances without cost. Parties to bear their own cost.
