Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 543
Instituted on : 05.11.2018
Decided on : 28.03.2024
Mahender Pal age 45 years s/o Sh.Ranjeet Singh resident of village KharawarTeh. Sampla District Rohtak.
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s Mahindra and Mahindra Through its Manager. Farm Equipment Sector Farm Division , 1st Floor, Mahindra Towers, Akurli Road, Kandivli(East), Mumbai-400101.
- Ghanghash Auto Company Through its Manager, Bhiwani Road, Rohtak.
...........……Respondents/opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OFCONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.BirbalAhlawat Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Sh.RajnishGautam, Advocate for the opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that respondents no.2 contacted the complainant to purchase the Swaraj Tractor from the respondent being the best tractor. As per the assurance of respondents, complainant had purchased the said tractor from the respondent No.2 who is dealer of respondent no.1. Complainant took the delivery of the said tractor on 26.09.2017 from the respondent no.2. The registration number of the said tractor is HR-95-5284. After 5 days of taking the tractor, the defects in engine were revealed and the complainant contacted the respondent no.2 and took the tractor to the workshop of respondents. The respondents changed some parts connecting the engine and told that the said tractor is in good condition. When the complainant plied the said tractor, he found that the consumption of pump was exceeding to the normal consumption due to which smoke oozed out profusely and there was a sound in the engine. The complainant again took the tractor to respodnentno.2 but respondent no.2 did no entertain the grievances of the complainant. There was a sound in the engine and the consumption of the diesel was 6 litres in place of 2 ½ litres required in ploughing of one acre of land. On 21.05.2018 the complainant again took the tractor to the respondent no.2 and the mechanics were called from respondent no.1 and they detected defects in the engine, but they refused to change the tractor and said that only the repairs can be made. The respondents have supplied a defective tractor to the complainant and as such they are bound to replace the same but despite repeated requests of the complainant, respondents refused to replace the tractor. The act and conduct of the respondents in not changing the defective tractor is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that respondents may kindly be directed either to replace the defective tractor with new one or to pay the cost of tractor alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of purchase of tractor till the date of actual realisation alongwith costs and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint notices were issued to the respondents/opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that the complainant brought the tractor in question first time for first free service after completing 58 hours at service center of respondent no.2 on 10.10.2017. At the time of opening of job card the complainant did not inform any defect/problem in the tractor. In the job card in the column of customer complaint it was only informed “Service” of the tractor and no other problem was brought to the notice of service center. Afterwards the complainant brought his tractor for second free service after completing 302 hours at the service center of respodnentno.2 on 09.03.2018. In this job sheet also no problem was brought to the notice of service center. It is denied that the consumption of pump was exceeding to the normal consumption or there was sound in the engine. It is also denied that the engine of the tractor is defective. The complainant is not eligible to get the tractor replaced as the said tractor is free of defects. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its reply has submitted that there was no defect in the tractor rather it was a routine service and opposite party satisfactorily done the same. The opposite party satisfactorily repaired the tractor of complainant as and when he brought the same to the service center of the opposite party. There is no defect in the tractor as alleged by the complainant. The respondents are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant in any manner. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence on 27.02.2020. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1/1 to Ex.R1/3 and closed his evidence on 30.09.2022. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.RW2/1 to Ex.RW2/7 and closed his evidence on 30.09.2022.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties.Through this complaint the complainant has submitted that the pump of the tractor was consuming more diesel than the normal consumption and there was sound in the engine also. He further submitted that there is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. The complainant took the defective tractor many times with the respondents but the same was not properly repaired by the respondents. On the other hand, contention of the opposite parties is that the vehicle was properly repaired by the respondents as and when the complainant approached the service center of the respondents. The complainant placed on record 5 documents in his evidence i.e. Ex./C1 to Ex.C5. On the other hand respodnentno.1 placed on record affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1/1 to Ex.R1/3. Respondent no.2 placed on record 7 documents alongwith the affidavit. As per the respondent no.2 they gave a proper service to the complainant and serviced the vehicle properly as per the manual. The perusal of the documents itself shows that the complainant complained regarding the engine noise, consumption of more diesel and defect in the engine. But the respodnentno.2 properly serviced the vehicle and engine sound was not found in the vehicle as alleged by the complainant. Engine was found OK and other grievances were also sort out. The complainant failed to prove any technical defect in the vehicle. Complainant has not placed on record any technical or mechanical report of engineer to prove the fact that there was any defect in the tractor. Hence there is neither any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question nor any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
28.03.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
