Orissa

Jajapur

CC/46/2016

Bairagi Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager ,Mahindra & Mahindra Farm Division - Opp.Party(s)

P.K.Panda,K.C.Mohanty

13 Sep 2017

ORDER

                IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                                    

                                                   Dated the 13th day of September,2017.

                                                            C.C.Case No.46 of 2016

Bairagi Sahoo  S/O Babaji Sahoo

2.Sukanti Sahoo,W/O Bairagi sahoo

At/P.O. Khannagar , P.S.Mangalpur

 Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

1.Manager, Mahindra 7 Mahindra Farm Division,Akruli Road

Kandivali (East) Mumbai .

2.M/S vikranta Motors, Sunguda,Chandikhole,Dist.jajpur .

                                                                                                                            ……………..Opp.Parties.                  

For the Complainant:                           Sri P.K.Parida,Sri K.C.Mohanty,Advocates.

For the Opp.Parties : No.1                   Sri S.Ch.Pradhan,P.K.Das  and associates.

For the Opp.parties No.2                     Sri S.Ch.Bal,Sri S.C.Beg, Advocates    .

                                                                                                    

                                                                                               Date of order:   13.09.2017.

SHRI JIBAN BALLAV  DAS, PRESIDENT .

Deficiency in  Automobile service  is the grievance of the complainant.

            The fact relevant for the  present dispute  shortly are that the petitioner purchased  a Tractor along with its Gyrovator from O.P.no.2 who is the authorized  dealer of O.P.no.1 (manufacturer)  taking financial assistance from Mahindra finance. The warranty period of said Gyrovator  is one year from the date of purchase i.e on 02.7.15  and  the warranty period of tractor is one and half year from the date of purchase i.e on  08.07.15 , Exide battery of the Tractor contents  of warranty i.e from  08.07.15.  

            It is stated by the petitioner that since  last three months both the Tractor and Gyrovator  did not work properly due to  machinery defect . Accordingly  the petitioner went to o.P.no.2 (authorized dealer)   but the O.P.no.2 did not  provide any service  during the period  of warranty.  As a result the tractor is unable to work from 01.06.16. further it is alleged by the petitioner  that the hour meter of the tractor failed ,the power battery of Exide make of ( SL.A153C329024) also shown no back up and fault of oil suchotcher , damage of sylinder etc . The tractor is unable to move. The Gyrovotor  was not working as its  gearbox failed ,  so unable to cultivate.

In view of the above situation the petitioner is facing financial loss ,mental agony and physical  harassment by running from  pillar to post and ,though the petitioner visited  time to time to customer care  but they did not receive  the complaint. . Finally on 18.6.16 the complaint lodged through E.mail regarding the problem of the vehicle . Besides this no free service  has been provided by the O.Ps. This attitude of the O.P  not   providing  free service  during the period of warranty not only amounts to deficiency of service but also unfair trade practice.

            Accordingly finding no other alternative way ,  the complainant  filed this case with the prayer to direct the o.ps  to restore /repair the vehicle or pay Rs. One lakh towards financial loss and pay Rs50,000/- for  moving to sunguda  and for  mental agony and  litigation cost.

            After appearance the  O.Ps filed their written version .The O.P.no.1 has  taken the stand in the written version that  the present complaint is not maintainable in the  eye of law.

Further the O.P no.1 has stated in the written version that the transactions and dealing between the O.P.no.1 and O.P.no.2  are on principal to principal basis. The vehicle manufactured by the o.P.no.1 subsequently  purchased by O.P.no.2 only  to resale the same to its own customer.

            It is also stated in the written version that the complainant purchased the tractor from o.P.no.2 and has alleged some allegation regarding deficiency of services against answering O.Ps. as well as against  the O.P.no.2. The petitioner  has alleged that after purchasing the tractor some defects arose in tractor and Gyrovator and also the battery was not functioning properly. As per the warranty manual of answering O.P the battery is a proprietary item and it is guaranteed by their respective manufacturers. The copy of warranty manual supplied to the complainant at the time of purchasing of the tractor, where in specifically it has been  mentioned that the battery is a proprietary item and the battery of the complainant’s vehicle is manufactured by ‘EXIDE” since the manufacture of the battery is exide India ltd. Accordingly  the manufacture of the battery should be a necessary party in this case. Further the petitioner has  alleged against O.P  about the manufacturing defects  in his tractor. In this contest the O.P has stated that the petitioner has  not communicated anything to the answering O.P regarding defects of the vehicle before filing of the case. The complainant only communicated to the o.p.no.2 regarding defects of battery and the O.P.no.2 took appropriate steps by replacing the battery by new one so also  other services has been provided to the complainant as a good will service. The complainant has not communicated anything to the answering O.P.no.1 . Therefore no cause of action arose to file this case against answering  O.P .no.1 . Hence, the case may be  dismissed against the O.P.no.1.

The O.P.no. 2 has  taken the stand in the written version  that the present complaint is not maintainable. The petitioner after purchasing  the tractor  and Gyrovator has not given any  information regarding machinery defects of Tractor. Due to fault of the petitioner the tractor and gyrovator is not working .The petitioner has not raised any complain before O.P.no.2 regarding the defects of Tractor  . The petitioner has filed this case before this fora. The O.Ps have no fault and  they are always ready to co-operate with the petitioner. In the above circumstances the petition may be rejected. 

On the date of hearing we heard the argument from the learned advocate  of both the sides. After perusal of the record we do not come across with any documentary evidence to  establish  the allegation of deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps  and  accordingly we disposed of the  dispute as per the order below.

            In the net result the dispute is disposed of . The petitioner is directed to produce the alleged Tractor along with Gyrovator  before the authorized service center of O.P.no.1 with proper acknowledgment within 15 days after receipt of this  order.  The  O.P.no.1 and 2 also directed to rectify the defect of the  above tractor along with Gyrovator   within one month  after receipt of this  order  . No cost.

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 13th day of September,2017. under my hand and seal of the Forum.