Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/76/2017

Bijender - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Om Parmar

08 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

      CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.   76 of 2017

                                          DATE OF INSTITUTION:             23.05.2017                                                          DATE OF ORDER:                         08.02.2024

 

Bijender son of Shri Hardeva R/o village Talu, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

            ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. The Manager/Proprietor/Signature authority Corporate Office Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd., Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai, India PIN600034. Ph.044-669190000, 044-28260224.

 

2. The Manager/Proprietor/Signature Authority Hind Tractor Tafe-Massey Ferguson dealer, Loharu Road, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani, Haryana.  Ph.08685000540.

 

3. The Manager/Proprietor/Signature Authority L&T Finance Company Limited, Main Road, New Anaz Mandi, Gate No.2, Sector-14, Hisar Haryana. Ph.08685835000. ….. Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 1986.

 

 

BEFORE:        Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-         Sh. Vimal Parmar, Advocate for complainant.

                        Sh. Lalit Mohan Kaushik, Advocate for OP No.1.

                        Sh. Balbir Sharma, Advocate for OP No.2.

                        OP No.3 exparte.

 

ORDER:

 

Saroj Bala  Bohra, Presiding Member.

 

1.                     Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant had purchased a Tractor Mark Tafe-Massey 9500, Chassis No.MEA8BD83EG1097372, Engine No.TSJ32786450 from OP No.2 on 10.02.2016 in a sum of Rs.7,70,000/, out of which Rs.5,00,000/- was paid in cash and remaining Rs.2,70,000/- was financed and insured from OP No.3. The tractor was having registration No.HR16S-2828. It is alleged that the tractor was not working in proper form as the gear box of the tractor was defective one and is locked without any action.  It has submitted that one day during plowing, gear of tractor became locked, OPs No.2 & 3 assured that it will be changed and OP No.3 will return the whole price of the tractor. As per complainant, this settlement was in the presence of Panchayat but in vain.  So, complainant got served a legal notice dated 02.05.2017 upon the OPs as well as complaint was also made to S.P. Bhiwani and on C.M. Window.  Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant seeking directions against the Ops to pay Rs.9,20,000/- on account of mental agony, financial losses, physical harassment and loss of valuable time. Further to pay Rs.21,000/- towards litigation expenses. Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 filed its written statement raising preliminary objections qua territorial jurisdiction, suppression of material facts, maintainability, locus standi and estoppel.  On merits, it has submitted that as and when complainant approached the service center of OP No.1, all problems were cleared, however, it is submitted that complainant never brought the tractor for periodical service and not followed the instructions given in the manual. However, a brand new gear box had been changed by the OP free of cost as a goodwill gesture. It is submitted that a demo tractor bearing No.HR16R/8524 was also given by the OP No.2 to the complainant so that complainant will not face any difficulties in his agriculture work but the said tractor was not returned  by complainant  so, FIR No.238 dated 01.05.2017 under Sections 406 & 506 IPC was registered at P.S. Bhiwani City against complainant and his brothers, thereafter, the present complaint has been filed by complainant as an afterthought. OP has submitted that after filing the present complaint, complainant did not raise any old or new complaint which clearly proves that the tractor is in good working conditions and free from defects. In the end, prayer for dismissal of complaint with heavy costs has been made.

3.                     OP No.3 filed its written statement raising preliminary objections qua locus standi, cause of action, maintainability and suppression of material facts. On merits, it has submitted that the tractor was purchased by complainant in Rs.7,25,000/- including cash and finance. Any manufacturing defect in the tractor has been denied by this OP. However, on complaint by complainant, gear box was changed to satisfy him otherwise it was not needed. As such, this OP denied any monetary loss and harassment to the complainant. In the end, prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                     OP No.3 did not appear despite issuing notice, as such, it was proceeded against as exparte vide order dated 03.08.2017.

5.                     In exparte evidence of complainant, his affidavit Ex. CW1/A alongwith documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-10 were tendered and closed the evidence on 13.03.2020.

6.                     On the other side, counsel for OP No.2 tendered documents Annexure RA to Annexure RL and closed the evidence on 31.08.2023.

7.                     No evidence produced on behalf of OP No.1 despite availing sufficient opportunities, as such, evidence of OP No.1 closed by Court vide order dated 31.08.2023.

8.                     We have heard learned counsels for the contesting parties and perused the record carefully. Written arguments on behalf of complainant filed.

9.                     Learned counsel for complainant has drawn our attention towards Mechanical Examination Report of the tractor dated 08.01.2020 conducted by Engineer concerned of Northern Region Farm Machinery Training and Testing Institute, Sirsa Road, Hisar wherein in Point III Observations on Tractor,  it is mentioned that:-

                        Component of Tractor                     Observation

                        Working of engine                             Normal

 

                        Working of clutch                              Normal

                        Working of steering system               Normal

                        Working of brake system                   Normal

                        Working of hydraulic system            Normal

Working of transmission                   The tractor gear box is provided with 8 forward & 2 reverse speed selection as following:

1. Low-1
2. Low-2
3. Low-3
4. Low-4
5. High-1
6. High-2
7. High-3
8. High-4
9. Reverse-Low
10. Reverse-High

There are two gear selection lever.

1. Low-High Selection lever.
2. Main gear shift lever to select the gear from 1,2,3,4 & reverse position.

 

• The Low-high gear selection lever is in normal working condition.
• The main gear shifting lever is not working and is stuck in no.4 position.
• Out of 8 forward & 2 Reverse speed, only Low-4 & High-4 position of gear lever is in working condition.
• The gear position at 1,2,3 & Reverse is not in working condition.

 

This indicates defect in gear selection mechanism of transmission system.

 

In the present condition of tractor, it cannot be operated in field or road.

                        Thus learned counsel for complainant has argued that the tractor was having some manufacturing defect which could not be rectified by the OPs despite replacing the gear box of the tractor.  As such, the counsel vehemently argued that the complaint may be allowed as prayed for.

10.                   The aforesaid report was agitated on behalf of OP No.2 vide application dated 09.05.2022 seeking inspection of the tractor in question from Haryana Roadways Workshop, Bhiwani but the said plea was declined by the Commission vide detailed order dated 17.08.2022 and observed the report dated 08.01.2020 as detailed one & convincing issued by an Engineer of a competent institute of Government of India.

11.                   In view of the mechanical report, we are of confirmed view that the tractor is having some manufacturing defect which could not be rectified by the concerned Ops despite replacing its gear box. Hence, the complaint is allowed. Had the OPs No.1 & 2 redressed the grievance of complainant before knocking the doors of this Commission, he must have not dragged into this litigation. Such, act and conduct of the OPs have harassed the complainant mentally as well as physically and has to suffer financial hardship. Learned counsel for complainant has stated at bar that the loaned amount taken from OP No.3 has already been cleared on 31.01.2024.  Therefore, OPs No.1 & 2 are directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of passing of this order:-

(i)        OP No.1, to replace the tractor with new one of the same model. In case of non-availability of the said model then to refund Rs.7,70,000/- (Rs. Seven Lacs Seventy thousand) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual realization subject to return of old tractor by complainant to OP No.2-dealer.

(ii)       OP No.2, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) to the complainant as compensation for harassment.

(iii)      OP No.2, also to pay a sum of Rs.11000/- (Rs.Eleven thousand) as litigation expenses.

                         In case of default, the OPs No.1 & 2 shall liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on all the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default.  If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Certified copies of this order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.          

Announced.

Dated:08.02.2024.