Haryana

Karnal

148/2014

Balinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Haryana Automobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. R.K. Mehla

06 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.                      

                                                          Complaint No. 148 of 2014

                                                          Date of instt.: 30.05.2014

                                                          Date of decision:15.12.2015

 

Balinder Singh s/o Multan Singh resident of village Ramgarh P.O.Sitamai tehsil Nissing district Karnal..

                                                                  ……..Complainant.

                   Vs.

 

1.M/s Haryana Automobiles, Outside Jundla Gate, near Meera Ghati Chowk, Karnal through its Prop.

2.M/s Mahindra & Mahindra, Swaraj Division Tractors, Industrial Area, Phase – IV, Mohali(Punjab) through its Chairman.

                                                                  …..Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Smt. Shashi Sharma……….Member.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-       Sh.R.K.Mehta Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.R.S.Chauhan Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he purchased one tractor Model 855X M  bearing  engine No. 473046/SSB17318-S and  chassis No. WXCA63930983637 for  an amount of Rs.6,60,000/- from Opposite Party No.1, vide bill No.1976 dated 29.1.2014 and the same was insured with HDFC ERGO. The said tractor carried warranty for two years . In wheat season, the said tractor was used for making Tudi with reaper  in the area of Madhya Pradesh.  Problem of the gear box developed in the tractor. He contacted Opposite party No.1,  but he was  told to bring the tractor to Karnal. Therefore, he brought the tractor to village Ramgarh, where engineer of Opposite Party No.1 repaired the tractor. Thereafter, the tractor  was used in the  season at Haryana, but again problem of gear box developed and the tractor was consuming more diesel. Therefore, he again contacted the Opposite party No.1  and the tractor was brought to the agency on 30.5.2014 for repairs. After two days, the tractor was repaired and handed over to him. However, on 11.5.2014, again problem developed  in the tractor.  He contacted the Opposite party No.1  and tractor was brought to the agency on 12.5.2014. The engineer of Opposite Party No.1  orally told that problem was of manufacturing defect and as such the same was not repairable. Therefore, he refused to take the said tractor from Opposite party No.1  and requested to replace the tractor with a new one. The tractor  has been lying in the agency of Opposite party No.1  since then as the Opposite parties  have not replaced the tractor and postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. In this way,   he suffered mentally, financially and physically on account of deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite parties.

 

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite party No.1  filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that complaint is not  legally maintainable; that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint and that the tractor was used by the complainant for commercial purposes and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

 

                    On merits, it has been submitted that there is no mechanical or technical defect  in the gear box of the tractor. The Opposite party No.1  sent engineer, who found that rod of the low gear was forcibly bent by untrained driver and there was no technical or manufacturing defect in the gear box, therefore,   rod of low gear was replaced. On 24.2.2014 first service was conducted.  On 13.4.2014,  it was told that the speedo-meter of the tractor was defective, therefore, on 18.4.2014, wire of the defective meter was replaced and the same was repaired. After repairs of the gear rod, the Opposite party No.1 sent notice to the complainant to take the tractor but he had not taken the tractor from the agency. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied specifically.

 

3.                 Opposite Party  No.2 filed separate written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objection has been raised that the  complaint is false, frivolous, vague and has been filed by the complainant to take advantage of his own wrongs and to get pecuniar advantage by abusing the process of law. 

 

                   On merits, it has been asserted that there is no mechanical  or technical  defect in the gear box of the tractor. The engineer sent by the Opposite party No.1 found that rod of the low gear was forcibly bent by untrained driver and the same was replaced. The other allegations made in the complaint have not been admitted.

 

4.                 In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW2/A, affidavit of Balbir Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 have been tendered.

 

5.                 On the other hand, in evidence of Opposite parties, affidavit of Sh.Jahid Hussan partner of firm Opposite party No.1  Ex.RW1/A, affidavit of Sunderjit Singh  Ex.RW3/A, affidavit of Amit Kumar Raghav Manager Legal of Opposite party No.2Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 have been tendered.

 

6.                 We have appraised the evidence on record, the  material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

 

7.                 As  per the case of the complainant problem in the gear box of the tractor developed in the month of March, 2014 and the same was repaired by the engineer of Opposite party No.1,  but again after some time , the problem in the gear box developed and the tractor started consuming more diesel in the month of May, 2014. Therefore, same was brought to the agency of Opposite party No.1  on 3.5.2014 and after repairing the same was handed over to him after two days. However, again problem developed in the tractor on 11.5.2014 and was brought to the agency of Opposite party No.1  on 12.5.2014 and since then the same has been lying at the agency of Opposite party No.1 . It has further been alleged that engineer of Opposite party No.1  had told him orally that there is manufacturing defect in the tractor and the same cannot be repaired.

 

8.                 It is worth pointing out at the very out set that the complainant did not get the tractor examined from any mechanical engineer or expert to establish that there is manufacturing defect in the tractor. Photographs Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 do not establish in any manner that there was any manufacturing defect in the gear box of the tractor. The complainant has produced copy of one job sheet Ex.C6 dated 12.5.2014, according to which the complaint was made that high/low gear was not working. Opposite Parties have also produced copy of the said job sheet Ex.R3, according to which it was found that high/low gear shifting rod cirelip dislocated and the same was repaired.

 

9.                   Copy of the job sheet dated 24.2.2014 Ex.R6A indicates that first service of the tractor was done and no defect was pointed out by the complainant at the time of said service.  As per job sheet dated 13.4.2014 temperature gauge was not working. According to the copy of job sheet dated 18.4.2014 Ex.R5 some meter repair was done.  On 3.5.2014, the complainant had admittedly taken the tractor to the workshop of Opposite party No.1  and the job sheet, the copy of which is Ex.R4 was prepared, which shows that the complainant  complained about the gear box, consuming  more diesel and problem of RPM drop. All the problems were sorted out.  Copy of the job sheet dated 8.5.2014 Ex.R2 indicates that tractor was taken to the workshop of Opposite party No.1 with problem of low gear sticky and it was found that   the low gear shifting road travelled beyond low gear, which was due to untrained driver’s mishandling and the rod came out of its groove. The shifting rod was modified by fitting stopper.  These job sheets are not sufficient to establish in any manner that there was any manufacturing defect in the tractor.  It is also worth mentioning that if a tractor is used in the field, some wear and tear would certainly take place and some parts may require repairs or replacement. Some problem may also occur due to mishandling by some untrained driver.  No major defect in the engine or in other part of the tractor was found, while the same was taken by the complainant to the workshop of the Opposite party No.1 .

 

10.               In order to substantiate his allegations, the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence or expert opinion, on the basis of which it can be concluded that there is  some manufacturing defect in the tractor. Mere, affidavits of the complainant and Balbir Singh cannot be taken to be the gospel truth and the same are not sufficient to prove the allegations of the complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the tractor.  Under such circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that the complainant has altogether failed to establish that there is manufacturing defect in the tractor purchased by him from the Opposite Parties.

 

11.               The Opposite  parties were bound to carry out   necessary repairs of the tractor during the warranty period as per terms of the warranty. Copies of the job sheets produced by the parties  indicate that Opposite party No.1  carried out necessary repairs whenever the tractor was taken to its workshop. After repairing the tractor on 12.5.2014, a notice was sent to the complainant on 4.6.2014, the copy of which is Ex.R1, to take the tractor as the same was  perfectly in proper condition but the  complainant has not taken the tractor from there without sufficient reason. In this way, there was neither any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

12.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:15.12.2015                                                                      

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma )  (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

    Member             Member.

 

 

 

                  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present:-       Sh.R.K.Mehta Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.R.S.Chauhan Advocate for the Ops.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:15.12.2015                                                                      

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma )  (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

    Member             Member.