1 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 34, 35 and 36 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant is an agriculturist and he is owner of land measuring 16 Acres at village Gharyala. On 30.4.2022, the complainant purchased one Tractor Preet 6549 having Regd. No. PB46-AH-1839, Engine No. P465-00829, Chassis No. TEE65AG007601B, Model 2021 for a sum of Rs. 9,50,000/- vide bill invoice No. 2 dated 30.4.2022 from the opposite party No.1. After 2/3 weeks from the date of purchase of the above said vehicle when the complainant was harvesting the wheat crop with the above said vehicle but the above said vehicle stopped working for the harvesting of the crops due to some technical fault. The complainant immediately approached the opposite party No. 1 through telephonically regarding the fault of the said vehicle and the opposite party No. 1 sent a technical team to remove the defect of the said vehicle and after repairing the above said vehicle, the opposite party No. 1 assured to the complainant that his vehicle now defect free and it will work properly. After few days, the complainant started to ploughing his field with above said tractor, the tractor stopped its Engine automatically and again the complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 regarding the above said defect as mentioned above and again the opposite party No. 1 sent a technical team of the company to check his vehicle and they again repaired the above said vehicle and assured to the complainant that his vehicle is now defect free and it will work properly. In the month of February, 2023, the engine of the vehicle again stopped its working and the complainant again approached the opposite party No. 1 and again the opposite party No. 1 sent a technical team to check the vehicle and they asked to the complainant that battery of the said vehicle has been damaged. As per their instructions, the complainant has purchased one Excide Battery for a sum of Rs. 8,800/- on 15.2.2023 and only Rs. 4,150/- were paid by the agency to the complainant and remaining amount is due towards the agency and the officials of the opposite party No. 1 installed the battery of the said vehicle and assured to the complainant that now his tractor is defect free and it will work properly. After few days, the engine of the vehicle again stopped its working and is fully defective and the complainant again approached and requested the opposite party No. 1 that his tractor is technically faulty and change the above said vehicle which was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party No. 1 but the opposite party No. 1 refused to accept his genuine request and the opposite parties did not change the above said vehicle and the opposite parties flatly refused as well as lingered on the matter on one false pretext or the other. The complainant served a legal notice dated 4.3.2023 through his counsel to the opposite party No. 2 thereby directing the opposite party No. 2 to return/ replace the above said vehicle alongwith interest within the period of 30 days from the receipt of the legal notice but the opposite party No. 2 did not give any proper reply to the complainant. Due to that malfunctioning of the above said tractor the complainant bears a loss of Rs. 5,000/- per acre in years and total loss is Rs. 80,000/- as such, the opposite parties are joint, severally liable to pay the same. The complainant has prayed the following relieves:-
- The opposite parties be directed to change/ replace the above said vehicle having registered No. PB46-AH-1839.
- The opposite parties be directed to compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation and due to that malfunctioning of the above said tractor the complainant bears loss of Rs. 5,000/- per are in 1 years and total loss is Rs. 80,000- as well as on account of mental and physical harassment caused to the complainant at the hands of the opposite parties on account of short come, deficient and negligent service may also be awarded to the complainant in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.
Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex. C-1, self attested copy of Bill invoice No. 2 Ex. C-2, Self attested copy of change of battery Ex. C-3, Self attested copy of RC of the vehicle Ex. C-4, Self attested copy of photographs of repairs of the above said vehicle Ex. C-5, Self attested copy of legal notice Ex. C-6, Self attested copy of receipt Ex. C-7, Self attested copy of Jamabandi Ex. C-8, Self attested copy of Adhar Card Ex. C-9.
2 Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties and opposite party No. 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the present complaint under Section 34, 35 and 36 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 is not maintainable in the eyes of law. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with malafide intention and with ulterior motive to harass the opposite party No 2 as the complainant has dragged the opposite party No. 2 in unwarranted and unnecessary litigation by filing the present complaint. The present complaint is not maintainable as per Sections 34, 35 and 36 of the Consumer Protection Act and this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint as the transaction involved in the present case is of commercial nature and this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. As the warranty policy, the manufacturing company i.e. Preet Tractors Pvt. Ltd. covers the tractor under warranty for a period of one year from the date of installation or 1500 working hours, whichever is earlier against defects of quality and workmanship. The complainant has alleged that the tractor stopped working 2/3 weeks of the date of the purchase i.e. 30.4.2022 but the complainant has brought this fact in to the knowledge of opposite party No. 2 on 6.3.2023. As such, there is delay of approximately 8 months to bring in to the knowledge of the opposite party No. 2 about the alleged defect in the tractor. As such, the opposite party is not liable for any kind of replacement etc. The present complaint is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of necessary and proper parties. The complainant has not impleaded the Preet Tractor Pvt. Ltd. i.e. maker of the tractor as party to the present complaint. The complainant has not approached this commission with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. The complainant has furnished wrong facts in order to mislead this commission. The complainant has intentionally did not plead the true facts in order to take undue benefits. The opposite party No. 2 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.
3 Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite party No. 1 but no one appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 1 and consequently, the opposite party No. 1 was proceeded against exparte.
4 We have heard the Ld.counsel for the complainant and opposite party No. 2 and have carefully gone through the record placed on the file.
5 Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant is an agriculturist and he is owner of land measuring 16 Acres at village Gharyala. On 30.4.2022, the complainant purchased one Tractor Preet 6549 having Regd. No. PB46-AH-1839, Engine No. P465-00829, Chassis No. TEE65AG007601B, Model 2021 for a sum of Rs. 9,50,000/- vide bill invoice No. 2 dated 30.4.2022 from the opposite party No.1. He further contended that after 2/3 weeks from the date of purchase of the above said vehicle when the complainant was harvesting the wheat crop with the above said vehicle but the above said vehicle stopped for working for the harvesting of the crops due to some technical fault. He further contended that the complainant immediately approached the opposite party No. 1 through telephonically regarding the fault of the said vehicle and the opposite party No. 1 sent a technical team to remove the defect of the said vehicle and after repairing the above said vehicle, the opposite party No. 1 assured to the complainant that his vehicle now defect free and it will work properly. He further contended that after few days, the complainant started to ploughing his field with above said tractor, the tractor stopped its Engine automatically and again the complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 regarding the above said defect as mentioned above and again the opposite party No. 1 sent a technical team of the company to check his vehicle and they again repaired the above said vehicle and assured to the complainant that his vehicle now defect free and it will work properly. He further contended that in the month of February, 2023, the engine of the vehicle again stopped its working and the complainant again approached the opposite party No. 1 and again the opposite party No. 1 sent a technical team to check the vehicle and they asked to the complainant that battery of the said vehicle has been damaged. As per their instructions, the complainant has purchased one Excide Battery for a sum of Rs. 8,800/- on 15.2.2023 and only Rs. 4,150/- were paid by the agency to the complainant and remaining amount is due towards the agency and the officials of the opposite party No. 1 installed the battery of the said vehicle and assured to the complainant that now his tractor is defect free and it will work properly. He further contended that after few days, the engine of the vehicle again stopped its working and is fully defective and the complainant again approached and requested the opposite party No. 1 that his tractor is technically faulty and change the above said vehicle which was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party No. 1 but the opposite party No. 1 refused to accept his genuine request and the opposite parties did not change the above said vehicle and the opposite parties flatly refused as well as lingered on the matter on one false pretext or the other. He further contended that the complainant served a legal notice dated 4.3.2023 through his counsel to the opposite party No. 2 thereby directing the opposite party No. 2 to return/ replace the above said vehicle alongwith interest within the period of 30 days from the receipt of the legal notice but the opposite party No. 2 did not give any proper reply to the complainant. Due to that malfunctioning of the above said tractor the complainant bears a loss of Rs. 5,000/- per acre in years and total loss is Rs. 80,000/- and prayed that the present complaint may be allowed.
6 On the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 2 contended that that the present complaint under Section 34, 35 and 36 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 is not maintainable in the eyes of law. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with malafide intention and with ulterior motive to harass the opposite party No 2 as the complainant has dragged the opposite party No. 2 in unwarranted and unnecessary litigation by filing the present complaint. He further contended that the present complaint is not maintainable as per Sections 34, 35 and 36 of the Consumer Protection Act and this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint as the transaction involved in the present case is of commercial nature and this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. He further contended that as the warranty policy, the manufacturing company i.e. Preet Tractors Pvt. Ltd. covers the tractor under warranty for a period of one year from the date of installation or 1500 working hours, whichever is earlier against defects of quality and workmanship. He further contended that the complainant has alleged that the tractor stopped working 2/3 weeks of the date of the purchase i.e. 30.4.2022 but the complainant has brought this fact in to the knowledge of opposite party No. 2 on 6.3.2023. There is delay of approximately 8 months to bring in to the knowledge of the opposite party No. 2 about the alleged defect in the tractor. As such, the opposite party is not liable for any kind of replacement etc. The present complaint is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of necessary and proper parties. The complainant has not impleaded the Preet Tractor Pvt. Ltd. i.e. maker of the tractor as party to the present complaint. The complainant has not approached this commission with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. The complainant has furnished wrong facts in order to mislead this commission. The complainant has intentionally did not plead the true facts in order to take undue benefits and prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed.
7 We have gone through the rival contentions of the respective parties.
8 The opposite party No. 2 has taken plea that transaction involved in the present case is of commercial nature and this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. But the opposite party No. 2 has not placed on record any document which establish the transaction as commercial one and we are not agree with the contention of the opposite party No. 2
9 In the instant complaint, it is not disputed that the complainant has purchased the Tractor Preet 6549 having registration No. PB46-AH-1839 for a sum of Rs. 9,50,000/- vide invoice No. 2 dated 30.4.2022 from the opposite party No. 1 because the complainant has placed on record invoice dated 30.4.2022 Ex. C-2. As per version of the complainant that after 2/3 weeks from the date of purchase of the above mentioned vehicle has been stopped for working for harvesting of the crops and the complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 1 sent a technical team to remove the defect in the tractor and after some days again tractor in question stopped working and again same was checked by technical team and was repaired. Again in the month of February 2023 some problem in the vehicle occurred and the battery of tractor was got changed by complainant from Jarnail Auto Electronic works Main Chownk Khem Karan Road Patti vide document Ex. C-3. Later on the said tractor again stopped working and again the complainant made complaint to the opposite party No. 1 regarding the same and the complainant requested the opposite party No. 1 regarding replacement of tractor in question but the opposite party No. 1 refused to accept the request of the complainant . Later on the complainant served a legal notice dated 4.3.2023 through counsel to the opposite party No. 2 to return / replace the said vehicle. To prove his contention, the complainant has placed on record legal notice Ex. C-6 and its postal receipt Ex. C-7. As per averments of the complaint, the complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 and made complaints regarding the same from the very beginning but the opposite party No. 1 did not come forward in this case and opposite party No. 1 proceeded against exparte, as such, the allegations of complainant to approach the opposite party No. 1 remain un-rebutted . Moreover, the version of the opposite party that as the warranty policy, the manufacturing company i.e. Preet Tractors Pvt. Ltd. covers the tractor under warranty for a period of one year from the date of installation or 1500 working hours, whichever is earlier against defects of quality and workmanship. The complainant has alleged that the tractor stopped working 2/3 weeks of the date of the purchase i.e. 30.4.2022 but the complainant has brought this fact in to the knowledge of opposite party No. 2 on 6.3.2023. As such, there is delay of approximately 8 months to bring in to the knowledge of the opposite party No. 2 about the alleged defect in the tractor. But as per version of the complainant, the after 2/3 weeks from the date of purchase of the tractor in question, it occurs problems in it. The version of the opposite party No. 2 that the said fact regarding the defect came to the knowledge of opposite party No. 2 on 6.3.2023 is not admitted because as per Ex. C-3 an amount of Rs. 4,150/- has been credited on 21.2.2023 i.e. Battery Wty Claim and same is under the letter head of Preet Tractors Pvt. Ltd. P.O Box No. 28, Nabha-Patiala Road Nabha, Punjab. As such the version of the opposite party No. 2 is totally wrong. Moreover, as per admission of the opposite party No.2, the complainant informed regarding the defect in tractor on 6.3.2023 i.e. also within one year from the date of purchase of tractor i.e. 30.4.2022. The complainant has also placed on record photographs of the tractor which are Ex. C-5 which shows that there is some problem in the tractor in question.
10 The complainant has purchased the above said tractor for ploughing his fields but from the very beginning he is facing problems and the said tractor is starting giving problems within one year from the date of purchase as such the said tractor is within warranty period. Any consumer would like to purchase a brand new vehicle just to avoid any unnecessary hardship and inconvenience, so that the said vehicle may work properly at least for a minimum period of two three years.
11 The expression ‘deficiency’ of services is defined under Section 2 (1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Now Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019], which is reproduced as under: “
(g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
The quality, standard, purity and potency of the goods have to be considered in the light of definition of the word, “defect”, as given in Section 2 (1) (f) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [now Section 2 (10) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019], which is reproduced as under:
“(f) "defect" means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.”
On perusal of above provisions of the Act, it is clear that “defect” means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard, which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force. Keeping in view the above credentials, the ‘defect’ is to be ascertained and if such a defect occurs in a brand new product, then the onus is upon the manufacturer to prove that it is free from any defect and the defect in the same was not a manufacturing one. The OPs have failed to prove that the defect in the product was not a manufacturing defect.
12 The complainant is claiming Rs. 5,000/- per acre in one years and total loss of Rs. 80,000/- but the complainant has not placed on record any document which establish that the complainant is entitled to the said loss.
13 In view of above discussion, the present complaint is partly and in the interest of justice, the opposite parties is directed to repair the tractor in question to the satisfaction of the complainant. If the tractor in question of not repairable, then the opposite parties are directed to replace the tractor in question with the new one of the same model and make. The complainant has been harassed by the opposite parties for a long time, therefore, the complainant is also entitled to Rs. 25,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses from the opposite parties. Opposite Parties are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @9% per annum, on the awarded amount from the date of complaint till its realisation. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Commission
28.02.2024
