Haryana

Ambala

CC/268/2021

Jagtar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Anil and Brother - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

21 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	268 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	26.08.2021
Date of decision	:	21.11.2022

Jagtar Singh S/o Surinder Singh, Resident of Village-Barnala, PO-Dhankaur, Ambala City, Distt-Ambala (Haryana).

…..Complainant

VERSUS

1. M/s ANIL AND BROTHERS, Chandigarh -Nahan Road, Naraingarh, Distt-Ambala State-(Haryana) (Through its Manager)
2. HOLAND TRACTOR Corporate Office: CNH INDUSTRIAL INDIA Pvt. Ltd, PLOT No-14A, TOWER B 2^ND 7 3^RD  FLOOR VIOM BUILDING, SECTOR-18, GURGAON-122015 (Through its M.D).

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Complainant in person.

                    Shri Rajbir Saini, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

                    Shri Rajeev Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

                   (a) To refund the amount of Rs.7,35,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase of the tractor till                   realization.

(b) To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

(c) To pay Rs 5,000/- as litigation charges.

                                      OR

Grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of this case are that the complainant  purchased a New HOLLAND Agriculture Tractor -3630 bearing, Model No-NH3630 SPL ED Engine No-259467DX, Chassis No- NHN36300ZKD466262nhn Tr Sr No-363000zkd466262 HMR 885, HP -55, HSN Code -8701,  on making payment of Rs.7,35,000/- to OP No.1 vide Invoice No-453 dated 12-09-2019 and got Registration bearing No-HR85C-0805. It was assured by OP No.1 that the above Tractor is best for agriculture purpose instead of other Tractor and the company will be fully responsible for repair/replacement if any part found faulty in future.  In the month of Aug 2021, the complainant found leakage in LH.RH Wheel  of the said tractor. Resultantly, he took the said tractor to OP No.1. OP No.1 replaced the defective parts on receiving total amount of Rs.1465/- i.e. SEAL CASSETTLE for Rs 633/-& PROTECTION DUST-REAR AXL for Rs.532/-  + Labor charge Rs 300/-. However, the Service Manager and Mechanic Technical Forman of OP No.1 told to the complainant that wheel leakage problem of the NEW HOLLAND Tractor is a manufacturing defect and that it cannot be repaired permanently. It has been stated that the OPs were deficient in providing service firstly by selling the tractor in question which is suffering from manufacturing defects and secondly by charging an amount of Rs.1465/- for replacing the defective parts in the said tractor, during warranty period. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, locus standi and cause of action etc. On merits, it has been stated that the complainant has not produced any document to prove that the tractor in question is suffering from any manufacturing defect. There is a warranty of tractor parts which shall not cover beyond 1200 hours or 12 months whichever is earlier. The repair work carried out on the tractor of complainant was out of warranty period and that was why an amount of Rs. 1465/- was charged from him. The problem in the said tractor was due to the wear and tear and not otherwise and further the problem was suitably catered by the Service Engineer, hence the complainant did not face any problem at the hands of the OPs. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Upon notice, the OP No.2 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability etc. On merits, it has been stated that OP No.1 is the Authorized Dealer of the OP No.2 who shares the relationship of Principal to Principal. It is crystal clear from the Bank Statement and Invoice that sale consideration towards the said tractor has been paid by the complainant to OP No.1. OP No.2’s responsibility is limited to the terms of the warranty, the copy of which was also provided to the complainant at the time of purchase of the said Tractor. As per Warranty clause, warranty shall not be covered beyond 1200 Hrs. or 12 months whichever is earlier. As such the complainant was billed for replacement of Seal Cassette &Protection Dust Rear and for Labor charges in August 2021 which is evidently beyond the Warranty Period. The problem in the said Tractor was due to wear and tear and not otherwise and further the problem was suitably cater to by the service engineers. The complainant has filed the present complaint only on an assumption that the problem of LH. RH Wheel Leakage will be created in future and that too with a clear knowledge that the said tractor is beyond warranty. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.
5.           The complainant tendered affidavit of Mr. Dheeraj Bhandari, working as Field Service Engineer & Authorized Representative, CNH Industrial (India) Private Limited, Having its registered office at Level-4, Rectangle-1, D-4, District Centre, Commercial Complex, Saket, New Delhi-110017 as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 and C-5 and closed the evidence. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Jagmeet Singh, Manager of M/s Anil and Brothers, Chandigarh-Nahan Road, Naraingarh, District Ambala as Annexure OPP/A alongwith documents Annexure OPP/1 to OPP/5 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Dheeraj Bhandari, Field Service Engineer and Authorized Representative, CNH Industrial (India) Private Limited, as Annexure OP-2/A alongwith documents Annexure R2/1 to R2/13 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.
6.           We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for OP No.1 and 2 and carefully gone through the case file.
7.           The complainant in person submitted that by selling the defective tractor in  question, having manufacturing defects therein and on the other hand by neither rectifying the defects therein during warranty period, free of cost,  nor replacing the same with a new one nor refunding the price thereof,  the OPs are deficient in providing service, negligent and adopted unfair trade practice. 
8.           On the contrary, learned counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 submitted that since the complainant has failed to prove that the tractor in question suffers from any manufacturing defect and also at the same time, the defect arose therein, when the said part was out of warranty, as such, the complainant is not entitled to get refund of the amount paid towards sale consideration of the said tractor.   
9.           The moot question which falls for consideration is, as to whether, the complainant  is entitled to get refund of the price of the tractor in question or not?. It may be stated here that admittedly, the defect arose in left and right wheel of the tractor in question, in the month of August 2021 i.e. after a period of more than 22 months from the date of purchase of the said tractor i.e. from 12.09.2019.  Thus, in the first instance, to come to any conclusion, as to whether, the complainant was entitled to get replacement of the said defective part, free of cost, or not, we need to refer to warranty clause, as mentioned at page 7 of the warranty book, which was produced in original, by the complainant,  at the time of arguments. The said clause reads as under:-

“..Warranty for the following items shall not be covered beyond 1200 Hrs. or 12 months, whichever occurs earlier

Maintenance items like wheel seals, wheel bearings, any other parts exposed to the environment or related to the applications (like PTO related components, clutch related components, 3 point linkages, wheel rims, check chains, operator seal etc….”

10.           From bare perusal of the said  condition of warranty, it is evident that any defect in the maintenance items like wheel seals, wheel bearings, any other parts exposed to the environment or related to the applications (like PTO related components, clutch related components, 3 point linkages, wheel rims, check chains, operator seal etc shall not be covered within warranty, beyond 1200 hours or 12 months, whichever occurs earlier. As stated above, since admittedly, there was a leakage problem in the wheels of the said tractor after 22 months of purchase thereof, the OPs were therefore right in charging an amount of Rs.1465/- from the complainant, for replacement of the defective parts, referred to above, relating to the leaked wheels. On this score, the OPs cannot be held to be liable for deficiency in service or adoption of unfair trade practice.
11.           Now the question arises, as to whether, the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount paid towards the tractor or not? It may be stated here that not even an iota of evidence in the shape of expert report has been placed on record by the complainant, to prove that there is any inherent manufacturing defect in the wheels of the tractor in question or otherwise. In the absence of any such evidence, the bald assertions of the complainant cannot be taken into consideration. The mere fact that some leakage in the wheels of the tractor in question took place after 22 months of its purchase and that too when the same was out of warranty, as  explained above, it is not a ground for seeking refund of the amount paid towards the tractor in question.
12. In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is held that because the complainant has failed to prove his case, resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules. File be annexed and consigned to the record room.                             

Announced:- 21.11.2022.

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President