BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint no. 107 of 2013.
Date of Institution: 30.4.2013
Date of Decision: 20.9.2016
Budh Ram son of Mani Ram, resident of village Kharian, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. M/s. Marut Tractors, near HUDA chowk, Hisar road, Sirsa.
2. Escort Limited, Escort Agri Machinary, 18/4 Mathura Road, Faridabad
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite party no.1 exparte.
Sh. Rishi Sharma, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
In nutshell, complainant’s case is that complainant is an agriculturist. On 25.3.2013 complainant had purchased a tractor powertek 4455 BT vide bill No.81 dated 215.3.2013 from opposite party no.1. The complainant had paid half of the amount in cash and remaining was got financed. At the time of purchase of the tractor, the op no.1 had given three years guarantee of the tractor and assured him that in case any defect occurs in the tractor, it will be their responsibility. However, all the CL pressure pipes do not work and tractor started consuming much oil and its pulling power is weak. The complainant approached the opposite party no.1 in this regard after four days of purchase of tractor but the opposite party no.1 did not remove the above said defects rather stated that these type of defects occur in routine and also stated not to come again to them. Thereafter also the complainant visited the agency two/ three times and complained about problems in the tractor but he was misbehaved. The complainant had taken machine for preparing fodder (toori) on lease and incurred an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and had given an amount of Rs.60,000/- to the driver and had given an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the owners of the trolleys but due to defects in the tractor he could not use the same and has suffered the loss of above said amounts. Besides this, he has also suffered loss of Rs.50,000/- in agriculture work. Hence, the present complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to replace the tractor with a new one and also to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation for harassment.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared. Opposite party no.1 filed written statement asserting therein that warranty of the tractor is given by the manufacturing company. The answering op is working on the directions of the principal i.e. Escort Ltd. and no personal responsibility was taken by answering op. The complainant visited the answering op on various dates after purchase of the tractor and reported imaginary defects in the tractor. The complainant availed the services of the said tractor from answering op on 19.4.2013, 14.5.2013, 17.5.2013, 19.5.2013, 22.5.2013 and on 1.6.2013. The answering op took serious note of such imaginary defects reported by him in the tractor and thus, checked the tractor minutely and no defect was found therein. The complainant was fully satisfied with the working and performance of the tractor after services and he put his signatures on the Job card and consumer satisfaction notes on the dates when he availed the services of the tractor. The allegations of the complainant are totally false and baseless because the complainant visited the answering op even after filing the present complaint and he was quite satisfied with the services of agency. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. The opposite party no.2 in its separate written statement contested the complaint on similar lines as that of op no.1. Besides this, it has also asserted that complainant has alleged that ops have delivered defective tractor whereas the tractor is of top quality duly inspected/ tested by the ops and the complainant purchased the same only after fully satisfying himself with the condition and quality of the tractor which is clear from the fact that the tractor was delivered on 23.3.2013 and payment against the same was made on 25.3.2013 after taking trial in field. The op no.1 also informed the complainant to follow the service schedule and ops shall not be held liable for any damaged caused due to non following of the same. However, the complainant remained irregular since beginning and failed to bring his tractor for service in time which caused small damage to the tractor. Prompt and best services were provided to the complainant by op no.1 as and when he visited to op no.1. There is no expert opinion that the tractor in question is having manufacturing defect.
4. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C1. On the other hand opposite party No.2 has tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.OP/2A to Ex.OP2/K. None appeared on behalf of op no.1 when the case was fixed for its evidence and therefore, op no.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.1.2015.
5. We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant has purchased the tractor in question from opposite party no.1 on 25.3.2013 for a sum of Rs.5,85,000/- which fact is not in dispute. The complainant has alleged that he faced problems of CL pressure pipes and excess oil consumption and pulling problem in the tractor since very beginning and visited the opposite party no.1 in this regard even after four days of purchase of the tractor but he was not listened but there is nothing on file to prove that such defects occurred in the tractor within four days of its purchase. The opposite party no.2 has placed on file various job sheets issued by opposite party no.1. From the job card dated 17.4.2013 Ex.OP2/E it is evident that complainant complained about low pick up and pump recalibration at the time of first service and after service he was satisfied and put his signatures on the said job card. Then at the time of second free service which was done on 14.5.2013, the complainant did not lodge any complaint in the tractor. However, on 17.5.2013 complainant reported the defect of power steering not working and lift pump not working besides some other minor defects of breaking of clutch pedal etc. and in the customer satisfaction note Ex.OP2/H the representative of the complainant after his satisfaction put his signatures and there are remarks that power steering is repaired. lift pump is repaired and CL completed. Then on 1.6.2013 complainant reported some minor defects in the tractor that mudguard bubbling and pipe leaked etc. and defective items were replaced with new one as is evident from customer satisfaction note Ex.OP2/J which also bears the signatures of the representative of the complainant. So, it is proved on record that prompt and best services were provided to the complainant by the opposite parties as and when he visited to them. Mere wear and tear in the tractor cannot be said to be manufacturing defect and same occurs after working of the tractor in the fields and due to mishandling.
7. In view of above discussion, we are of the view that there is no merit in the present complaint. Hence, the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:20.9.2016 District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member
