Haryana

StateCommission

A/278/2016

MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

LEKH RAM - Opp.Party(s)

NARENDER PAL BHARDWAJ

03 May 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                                   First Appeal No  :   278 of 2016

Date of Institution:  04.04.2016

                                                                   Date of Decision:   03.05.2017

 

 

 

 

Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Tractor Division, Akurli Road, Kandivli East, Mumbai-400101 through its Authorized Representative Mr. Arunava Roy, General Manager (Sales & Customer Operations).

                             Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

Versus

 

1.      Lekh Ram son of Shri Hari Ram, resident of Village Nangal Sodha, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh (Haryana).

Respondent-Complainant

 

2.      Shri Balaji Tractors, Authorized Dealer, Mahindra and Mahindra, Rewari Road, Narnaul, District Mahendergarh through its Proprietor.

Opposite Party No.1

 

3.      Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Services, Branch Office, Narnaul, District Mahendergarh through its Manager.

Respondents-Opposite Party No.3

 

 

Argued by :         Mr. Subhash Chand, Advocate for the appellant

                   None for the respondent No.1

                   Mr. S.C. Thatai, Advocate for the respondent No.3

                   (Service of respondent No.2 dispensed with vide order dated October 07^th, 2016)

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

By filing this appeal, Mahindra and Mahindra Limited-opposite party No.2 (for short, ‘Manufacturer’) has challenged the order dated January 0^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby it directed to replace the engine of the tractor owned by Lekh Ram-complainant; Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.2200/- litigation expenses. 

2.      The complainant purchased a tractor Mahindra DI 575 make from Shri Balaji Tractors, Narnaul-opposite party No.1 (Authorized Dealer) for Rs.5,50,000/- vide bill No.1929 dated January 24^th, 2014.  The tractor was financed from Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Services-opposite party No.3.  After a few days of its purchase, the complainant noticed some defects in the tractor.  He approached authorized dealer.  The authorized dealer repaired the engine of the tractor and raised a bill of Rs.20,000/-.  The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum seeking replacement of tractor with new one or to refund its price and not to recover the installments from him. 

3.      The opposite party No.1-Authorized Dealer, in its, written version pleaded that the tractor was not having any manufacturing defect.  The tractor was repaired properly and an amount of Rs.20,000/- was outstanding against the complainant.  Denying the remaining contents of the complaint, it was prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The opposite party No.2-Manufacturer, in its, written version pleaded that it was not provided any opportunity to inspect the tractor by its technical expert.  The tractor was not used for agriculture purpose rather it was used on brick kiln. 

5.      The opposite party No.3-Financer, in its, written version pleaded that the complainant got financed Rs.3,00,000/- to purchase the tractor.  Remaining contents of the complaint were denied.    

6.      On December 09^th, 2016, Shri Vaibhav Narang, learned counsel for the manufacturer has made a statement that the engine of the tractor would be replaced with new one within one month to the satisfaction of the complainant. After replacement of the engine, two engineers of manufacturer would examine the tractor and issue a certificate to the complainant. 

7.      The certificate with regard to replacement of engine was issued by two engineers of manufacturer, that is, Nikhil Tyagi and Pradeep Singh, Customer Care Managers, which is reproduced as under:-

“Certificate with respect to replacement of engine

          Mr. Lekh Ram

          Village Nagel Soda, Thashil, Nagel Choudhary

          District: Mahindergarh, Haryana.

          Pin -123001

          Ph. No.9467259787

 

          This is to certify that Mahindra 575 DI with Tractor Sr. No.JKBE01320 has been inspected by us in compliance of the order dated 09-Dec-2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana in F.A. No.278 of 2016.  The engine of the aforementioned vehicle has been replaced with a brand new one, in compliance of the order of the SCDRC, Haryana.

         

          We have thoroughly inspected the vehicle after the replacement of engine.  The vehicle is up to the mark and in proper roadworthy condition.  There are no defects in the vehicle whatsoever.”       

 

8.      On April 19^th, 2017 learned counsel for the manufacturer had placed on record the coloured photographs of the tractor.  The complainant identified his tractor and stated that tomorrow, he would take the delivery of the tractor. 

9.      Today, case called several times since morning but neither complainant nor his counsel has put appearance.

10.    Learned counsel for the manufacturer has urged that the complainant  has taken the delivery of the tractor on April 25^th, 2017 and signed the Customer Satisfaction Note (CSN) (Annexure A-4) to this effect.  He has also placed on record photograph of the complainant with respect to the delivery of the tractor. 

11.    Learned counsel for the manufacturer has further urged that the compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the District Forum to the complainant may be reduced.

12.    Submission being convincing. In considered opinion of this Commission, the compensation awarded is certainly on higher side and Rs.25,000/- would be just and reasonable to be awarded by the District Forum.  This being so, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the manufacturer shall pay Rs.25,000/- on account of compensation to the complainant and except for the modification, the impugned order is upheld.

13.    The appeal stands disposed of in the manner indicated above.

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

 

 

Announced 03.05.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

    U.K