BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 150 of 2016.
Date of Institution : 14.6.2016
Date of Decision : 02.06.2017
Ravinder Singh, aged about 35 years, son of Shri Sukhdev Singh, resident of Vill. Sahaur, Tehsil and Distt. Barnala.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/s Hindustan Tractors Authorized dealer of Mahindra Gujrat Tractor, Office at Barnala Road, Opp. Bijli Ghar Tibba Wala, Sirsa, through its Prop./ Authorized person-Attorney.
2. Mahindra Gujrat Tractors Ltd., Regd. and Head Office Vishwa Mitri, Vadodra-390011 (Gujrat).
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SMT. RAJNI GOYAT…………………PRESIDING MEMBER
SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ………..……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. T.S. Gill, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. J.B.L. Garg, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief, is that complainant is an agriculturist. The complainant being a farmer in order to cultivate his land properly purchased the tractor make Hindustan-60 bearing chassis No.H60FF0109, engine No.H60FF0109, Model 2016 on 27.2.2016 for a sum of Rs.6,80,000/- from opposite party no.1 with one year guarantee. The complainant purchased the said tractor by spending the amount earned by him out of his hard labour. The whole family affairs of the complainant depends upon the agriculture pursuits. It is further averred that engine of the said tractor was creating the problem since the day of its purchase and besides this there were many other problem/ defects in the tractor. The complainant many times complained about the same to the ops but they always put off the complaint simply saying that by the passage of time, the flow of the engine would work properly. However, the complainant in the month of March, 2016 complained about the same as due to defect in the engine of the tractor, it became useless and on his complaint, the op no.1 sent their mechanic at the house of complainant who checked the working of the engine of the tractor. They opened the engine of the tractor in the presence of complainant and other respectable and did some repair work of the engine of the tractor and then assured that now the engine is quite OK but the problem in the engine never removed. However, when the engineer sent by op no.1 disclosed that there is defect in the engine, the complainant requested for the replacement of the tractor but to no effect. It is further averred that when the complainant again complained about the same, then the ops asked the complainant to bring the tractor at Sirsa and assured that they will get it checked from the expert engineer of the company and upon their assurance, the complainant brought the tractor at the agency of op no.1 and since then the tractor is lying with them. The op no.1 disclosed to the complainant that the pump of the tractor has gone out of order, which itself proves the manufacturing defect in the tractor. The defects in the tractor have never been removed out. However, the ops have conducted the services on the tractor with false assurance that the defects in the tractor would be removed permanently or they would replace the same. It is further averred that complainant also purchased straw reaper, computer leveler and wheat thresher etc. which can only be used with the tractor and due to the defect in the tractor, the same could not be used properly and hence the complainant has undergone the pecuniary loss of Rs.2,50,000/-. The complainant also got issued legal notice upon the ops but to no effect. The complainant also detected the touching on the tractor and the paint of the said tractor seems to be as repainted and the possibilities that the ops have supplied the defected/ old tractor cannot be ruled out. Due to the act and conduct and deficiency in service on the parts of ops, the complainant has suffered harassment and financial loss. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. OP no.1 in its written statement took certain preliminary objections and submitted that warranty on the tractor and its components/parts is given by the manufacturing company and that while assembling the tractor, few parts of different companies are fitted with the tractor and warranty on such parts is given by the manufacturing company of such parts and on their behalf, the warranty is given by the manufacturing company of the tractor. The warranty on the tractor and its parts was extended by answering op on behalf of manufacturing company as per conditions of the warranty, which were supplied to the complainant at the time of purchase of the tractor. On 22.4.2016, the complainant had availed the service of the tractor from answering op and he did not lodge any complaint about the working of the tractor. It is further submitted that on 5.5.2016, the complainant lodged a complaint with the answering op and on 6.5.2016, the mechanic of answering op visited the premises of complainant and inspected the tractor and complainant was required to bring the tractor at the workshop. On 7.5.2016, complainant brought the tractor to the workshop of answering op and no defect was found in the working of the tractor. However, the part which control the consumption of fuel by tractor is manufactured by BOSCH company and the answering op sent this part to the service centre of Bosch company namely Shri Balajee Diesel Service, Auto Market, Near Bansal Palace, Sirsa, which was checked by the said service centre on 9.5.2017 and it reported that there is no defect in the said part and same is working perfectly and efficiently and that the consumption of fuel is within the prescribed limit. The tractor of the complainant is in perfect working condition. The complainant was informed by the answering op in this regard on 17.5.2016 vide letter and he was required to take back the delivery of the said tractor but the complainant did not give any reply to the same. It is further submitted that complainant be required to take back the delivery of the said tractor from the workshop of answering op and to pay Rs.1000/- per day as parking charges to answering op w.e.f. 7.5.2016 till taking the delivery of the same. It is further submitted that legal notice was duly replied by answering op wherein all the aspects were made clear to the complainant and he was required to take back the delivery of his tractor from the answering op on payment of parking charges, but till date the complainant has not turned up to take his tractor. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.
3. Opposite party in its separate written statement while taking certain preliminary objections asserted that vehicle in question has not been purchased by complainant from answering op and there is no privity of contract between complainant and answering op. The answering op is the manufacturer of the tractor. It is further asserted that any such alleged assurance and promise given by op no.1 is not binding upon op no.2. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.
4. In evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and copies of documents Ex.C1 to C6, letter dated 17.5.2016 Ex.C7, postal receipts Ex.C8, Ex.C9, legal notice Ex.C10, copy of adhar card Ex.C11, receipt Ex.C12, reply to legal notice Ex.C13, photographs Ex.C14 to Ex.C22 and revenue record Ex.C23. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit Ex.R1, copy of legal notice Ex.R2, copy of postal receipt Ex.R3, copy of reply to legal notice Ex.R4, copy of job card Ex.R5, affidavit of Sh. Pavan Deolia, General Manager of op no.2 Ex.R6, copy of 1st labour free service document Ex.R7 and copy of document Ex.R8.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant has purchased the tractor in question from the opposite party no.1 on 27.2.2016 and has filed the present complaint on 14.6.2016 i.e. just within four months of purchase of tractor. However, there is nothing on record to prove that tractor is having any manufacturing defect. The complainant has not annexed any expert opinion in this regard. The complainant only reported the defect of high diesel consumption on 9.5.2016 and on 10.5.2016 pump was checked on calibration machine and it was found ok as is evident from copy of job card Ex.R5. The photographs of the tractor in question Ex.C14 to Ex.C22 also reveal that only diesel pump was opened. The opposite party no.1 informed the complainant vide letter dated 17.5.2016 placed on file by complainant himself that on 9.5.2016 they got checked the diesel pump of Bosch company from authorized dealer Shri Balaji Diesel Service Auto Market, Sirsa and they have done setting of the diesel consumption and as per dealer of Bosch company now the diesel pump is alright and consumption of diesel is within limit. It was further informed to him that thereafter they checked the load of the tractor and the problem of consumption of excess diesel is removed and now there is no problem of any kind in the tractor. Now the tractor is in perfect working condition since 9.5.2016 but he has not turned up to take back the tractor despite information given on the telephone. The legal notice served upon the opposite parties by the complainant on 26.5.2016 has also been duly replied by op no.1 vide reply dated 16.6.2016 Ex.R4 wherein also it was informed that tractor is lying parked in perfect working condition and complainant can take its delivery at any time during working hours and working days and it was also advised to take back the delivery of said tractor on receipt of the reply, otherwise complainant will be liable to pay Rs.1000/- per day as parking charges. The complainant has not substantiated his allegations by cogent and reliable evidence. So the complainant has failed to make out a case of replacement or refund of the price of the tractor in question. At the most, the opposite parties can be asked to inspect the tractor in question thoroughly and if any defect is found then to remove the same through service etc.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that opposite parties jointly and severally will check the tractor in question through their expert engineers and will make it in perfect working condition if any defect is found within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and complainant will take delivery of the tractor in question within a further period of 15 days. If the complainant does not take the delivery of the tractor in question within above said stipulated period, then the complainant will have to pay parking charges at the rate of Rs.500/- per day to the opposite party no.1. The present complaint stands disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated:2.6.2017. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
