Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/55

BALJIT SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

mahindra and mahindra - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP KHOSA

20 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :         55

Date of Institution :    22.02.2017

Date of Decision :      20.07.2017

Baljit Singh, s/o Achar Singh r/o Village Gujjar, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

   .....Complainant

Versus

1. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd, Phase V, Sahibzada SAS Nagar, Ropar, Mohali 160055.
2.   Guru Automobiles Authorized dealers Mahinder Tractor, Harindra Nagar, Kotkapura Road, District Faridkot.

......Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.

Sh P Singla, Member.

Present:       Sh Sandeep Khosla, Ld Counsel for complainant,

 Sh Ashwani Kumar Arora, Ld Counsel for OP-2,

 OP-1 Exparte.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal , President)

                                             Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to Ops to replace the defective tractor and pay all the charges on RC, Insurance of new tractor or to pay the amount of Rs.15 lacs as cost price and charges of RC and insurance alongwith compensation for mental agony and harassment etc and litigation expenses.

2                                             Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 27.02.2016, complainant purchased a tractor for Rs.7,40,000/- and used the same during cultivation period of April-May, 2016 and he noticed that there was some leakage of oil from the engine body of tractor. Complainant immediately reported the matter to OP-2, who after doing service of said tractor assured complainant that problem has been rectified and there is nothing to worry, but said problem did not stop and oil continued to leak. Complainant consulted a private mechanic, who after checking told complainant that there is a hole or fissure in the body of engine and this is a manufacturing defect. Complainant approached Ops and made several requests to them to replace the defective tractor, but all in vain. Complainant also served legal notice to Ops wherein requested them to replace the tractor in question, but they refused to do so. Complainant has suffered great harassment and mental tension due to this act of OPs, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and due to this complainant has prayed for seeking direction to Ops to replace the defective tractor and pay all the charges on RC, Insurance of new tractor or to pay the amount of Rs.15 lacs as cost price and charges of RC and insurance alongwith compensation for mental agony and harassment etc and litigation expenses. Hence, the complaint.

3                                                   Ld Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 28.02.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

 4                                         Notice issued to OP-1 through registered cover received back with report of Postal Department as ‘refused’. It is clear that Op-1 is not interested in defending the allegations of complainant, therefore, vide order dated 31.05.2017,  OP-1 was proceeded against exparte.                        

5                                        On receipt of the notice, OP-2 filed reply taking preliminary objection that complaint is incomplete as Ops have not been impleaded through their authorized persons as per law and even answering OP is a partnership concern and its partner Satya Rani and Mohit Galhotra have not been impleaded necessary party to complaint and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed on this ground. It is asserted that since the day of purchase, the tractor in question is running in good condition and is in the possession of complainant and no cause of action arises against OP-2. It is further averred that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material fact from this Forum and has filed the present complaint with malafide intention to gain undue advantage from answering OP. However, on merits, they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no defect in the tractor in question and it is also denied that complainant ever reported any complaint regarding leakage of oil from his tractor or brought his tractor to the showroom of OPs. There is no defect in tractor in question. It is asserted that tractor in question is running in good condition and there is no reason for getting the same checked from any private mechanic. It is further asserted that company has expert mechanics to check and remove the defects occurring in such products, but complainant has never brought his tractor before them. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP-2. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too are refuted being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

6                                                           Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 31 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                  Ld Counsel for OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Mohit Galhotra as Ex OP-1, document Ex OP-2 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of OP-2.

8                                                                 We have heard the ld counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties.

9                                      The ld Counsel for complainant argued that on 27.02.2016, complainant purchased a tractor for Rs.7,40,000/- and used the same during cultivation period of April-May, 2016 and he noticed that there was some leakage of oil from the engine body of tractor. He reported the matter to OP-2, who after doing service of said tractor, assured complainant that problem has been rectified and there is nothing to worry, but said problem did not stop and oil continued to leak. Complainant consulted a private mechanic, who after checking told complainant that there is a hole or fissure in the body of engine and this a manufacturing defect. Complainant requested OPs to replace the defective tractor, but all in vain. Complainant also served legal notice to Ops wherein requested them to replace the tractor in question, but they refused to do so. Complainant has prayed for direction to Ops to replace the defective tractor and pay all the charges on RC, Insurance of new tractor or to pay the amount of Rs.15 lacs as cost price and charges of RC and insurance besides compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses.

10                                                To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OP-2 argued that present complaint is incomplete as Ops have not been impleaded through their authorized persons as per law and even answering OP is a partnership concern and its partner Satya Rani and Mohit Galhotra have not been impleaded necessary party to complaint and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed on this ground. It is asserted that since the day of purchase, the tractor in question is running in good condition and is in the possession of complainant and no cause of action arises against OP-2. It is further averred that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material fact from this Forum and has filed the present complaint with malafide intention to gain undue advantage from answering OP. However, on merits, they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no defect in the tractor in question and it is also denied that complainant ever reported any complaint regarding leakage of oil from his tractor or brought his tractor to the showroom of OPs. There is no defect in tractor in question. It is asserted that tractor in question is running in good condition and there is no reason for getting the same checked from any private mechanic. It is further asserted that company has expert mechanics to check and remove the defects occurring in such products, but complainant has never brought his tractor before them. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

11            After careful observation of the record placed on file and evidence led by parties, it is observed that case of the complainant is that he purchased a tractor from OPs, from which oil keeps leaking from engine body. He reported the matter to OPs, who assured that they have rectified the defect, but said defect of leakage still persists in his tractor. On consultation with a private mechanic, complainant is told that there is some fissure or hole in engine of said tractor and it is a manufacturing defect. Grievance of complainant is that the requests made by him before OPs to replace the defective tractor bore no fruit, which amounts to deficiency in service and has caused mental agony and harassment to him. On the contrary, Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant and asserted that there is no manufacturing defect in said tractor and they have also denied that complainant ever reported any complainant regarding said tractor or brought his tractor to them for repair.

12                To prove his case, complainant has relied upon documents  Ex C-2, C-3 and C-4 that is copy of legal notice and postal receipts respectively issued by complainant to OPs showing that complainant duly reported the problem of leakage to OPs. Ex C-7 and C-8 are copies of bills which complainant had to pay for removing the defect of oil leakage of said tractor. Documents Ex C-10 to 20, which are original photographs of the tractor in question showing clearly the leakage of fuel from the fissure in engine. Affidavits of Gurtej Singh Ex C-21 and affidavit of Jagjit Singh Ex C-22 reiterate the pleadings of complainant that said tractor has some manufacturing defect. Complainant has also brought out attention to document Ex C-29, which is reply to notice by OP-1 Company to complainant wherein it is clearly mentioned that OPs had sufficient notice of grievance of complainant though in written reply, they have misstated that complainant has not reported any complaint regarding defect in said tractor. Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his case. There is a negligence on the part of OPs in not paying any heed to redress the grievance of complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service.  The vehicle in question is still under warranty and the OPs are liable to remove all the defects in the vehicle free of costs under warranty period.

13           From above discussion and evidence produced by parties, this Forum is of considered opinion that OPs have failed to provide effective services to the satisfaction of complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs are directed to repair the tractor to the satisfaction of complainant and are also directed to replace the defective parts if any free of costs under warranty conditions. Ops are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment suffered by him besides Rs.3,000/-as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 20.07.2017                                 Member                     President

       (P Singla)                 (Ajit Aggarwal)