Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest against the 1st & 2nd Opposite parties. 2. The case of the complainant is as follows; Channegowda S/o Kenchegowda, the husband of the 1st Complainant and father of Complainants No.2 to 6 had purchased a tractor manufactured by 1st Opposite party bearing No.KA 11/5209 having Engine No.4050501868 on 28.06.2005 with financial assistance of 3rd Opposite party through the dealer of 2nd Opposite party. After purchase of the above tractor and trailer from 2nd Opposite party with some accessories, the tractor was not in good condition due to mechanical defects and also for want of necessary parts and thereby Channegowda intimated to get service and to replace the required parts to the tractor or exchange the tractor as per warranty conditions, 1st & 2nd Opposite parties assuring some wrong information provided service in 2 or 3 times, but it was of no avail and though Channegowda requested 1st & 2nd Opposite parties to supply good conditioned tractor for his use and benefits, but, Opposite parties kept quite saying something. As per the Invoice dated 15.06.2005, 2nd Opposite party has received Rs.6,00,000/- but 2nd Opposite party has not supplied the materials as per the Invoice except tractor, trailer and cultivator. The tractor and trailer supplied by 1st & 2nd Opposite parties is defective and useless. Channegowda died on 17.12.2005 leaving behind the complainants as his LRs. The present complainants also made several attempts for supply of new tractor in the place of defective tractor. The complainants have spent Rs.1,40,000/- for repairs and to replace the parts of the tractor. Even now, the tractor is not working properly and therefore the complainants sustained loss of Rs.2,00,000/- and 1st & 2nd Opposite parties are bound to pay the loss and also repair charges of Rs.1,40,000/- and Rs.60,000/- received for non-supply of required materials. In spite of legal notice dated 03.03.2008, the Opposite parties have not complied, hence the present complaint. 3. The notices were served on Opposite parties 1 to 3. 1st & 2nd Opposite parties have remained exparte. 4. 3rd Opposite party has filed version admitting the purchase of tractor and trailer by Channegowda with financial assistance from 3rd Opposite party through 2nd Opposite party dealer, but has denied other allegations and further pleaded that 2nd Opposite party handed over the tractor and trailer with accessories to Channegowda after receiving the D.D. amount from the Bank. The complainants are using the tractor even today for agricultural operations and sought for dismissal of the complaint. 5. During trail, the 2nd Complainant is examined as CW.1 and produced Ex.C.1 to C.4 and further Selection Grade Lecturer, Department of Automobile Engineering, P.E.S. College of Engineering, Mandya was appointed as a Commissioner to inspect the tractor of the complainants and after inspection of the tractor, he has submitted the report. The complainants have not filed any objections to the report. Opposite parties have not adduced any evidence. 6. We have heard the counsel for the complainant. 7. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1) Whether the tractor in question is having manufacturing defects? 2) Whether the complainant proves that 2nd Opposite party did not deliver accessories and implements worth of Rs.60,000/-? 3) Whether the complainant is entitled for the compensation sought for? 8. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 9. POINT No.1:- The undisputed facts borne out from the materials on record are that Channegowda S/o Kenchegowda, the father of the complainants 2 to 6 purchased a tractor registered as KA 11/5209 manufactured by 1st Opposite party and sold by 2nd Opposite party dealer with financial assistance from 3rd Opposite party. The grievance of the complainant is that the tractor was not in good condition due to mechanical defects and in spite of request to provide service and to replace required parts to the tractor or exchange the tractor, 1st & 2nd Opposite parties did not respond except providing service at 2 or 3 times, further the complainants have also spent Rs.1,40,000/- for the repairs of the tractor. Though, the complainants have produced Ex.C.3, C.5, but those bills are after two years from the date of purchase of the tractor. Even Ex.C.10 also Ex.C.4, C.7, C.8 are not dated when actually repairs were done, Ex.C.6 is a estimate dated 18.12.2006 with regard to the some parts worth of Rs.2,223/-, even Ex.C.7 is also a estimate for Rs.6,030/- without date. Ex.C.7 is also not dated. Ex.C.13 is also not dated, Ex.C.12 and 14 and after two years of the purchase of the tractor, only two three bills are within 1 year. The complainant has produced the operator manual issued by the dealer and the complainants have obtained 4 free services and only 5th service has remained. Though, the 2nd Complainant has deposed that tractor as defective, but the Commissioner report does not prove that the tractor in question is having manufacturing defects. According to the commissioner report, no manufacturing defects were observed, the condition of hydraulic unit is satisfactory, Steering mechanism is satisfactory, brake shoes are worn out and brake shoes have to be replaced, emissions are well within standard limits and the condition of the engine is satisfactory. The major problem was found in transmission system, mainly in the gear box and differential and this has to be rectified by trained mechanic. So, the tractor in question requires only some repairs by trained mechanic and replacement of brake shoes and that report proves that there are no manufacturing defects in the vehicle. As per the commissioner report, the tractor has been used by the owner maximum to his requirement. It is naturally that while using the vehicle for 2, 3 years the vehicle comes for some repairs and those repairs are not mechanical defects. So from the expert report, it is clear that the complainants have failed to prove that the tractor sold by 1st & 2nd Opposite party is defective nature. Therefore, we answer the point in the negative. 10. POINTS NO.2 & 3:- According to the complainants, the 2nd Opposite party did not supply tophood, military hook assemble, 2F/3F M.B. plough and land leveler worth of Rs.60,000/-. Of course, the complainants have produced Invoice Ex.C.1 in respect of those items, but it contains the words Goods once sold will not be taken back to which customer has signed. Even though, 2nd Opposite party has remained exparte and even though 2nd Opposite party has not claimed the legal notice as per Ex.C.20, but the claim of non-supply of materials is barred by limitation, because as per the complainant itself the cause of action for the complaint arose on 15.06.2005 and on the date of legal notice dated 03.03.2008 and subsequently. As per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the complaint shall be filed within two years from the date of cause of action and the complaint may be entertained on application for condonation of delay with sufficient reasons. But in the present complaint, the complainants have not filed any application for condonation of delay and as per the complainant itself cause of action has arisen on 15.06.2005 and 03.03.2008 and subsequently. So, the legal notice is issued after expiry of 2 years from the date of purchase and therefore the claim for Rs.60,000/- for alleging non-supply of military hood, tophood, land leveler, MB plough cannot be entertained at all. 11. The complainant have pleaded that they have spent Rs.1,40,000/- for the repairs of the tractor, but the receipt produced do not show that the complainant spent Rs.1,40,000/-. In the span of 3 years, they have spent some amount and have obtained free service at 4 times with dealer i.e. 2nd Opposite party. They have not complained any defects of the tractor or trailer to the dealer or the manufacturer and there is no acceptable evidence that they have sustained loss of Rs.2,00,000/- due to defective tractor. As per the operation manual book issued by the company, the warranty period for the parts of the tractor is one year or 1000 hours use from the date sale and the warranty period is also limited to 18 months from the date of manufacturing. Admittedly, the tractor was purchased on 28.06.2005 and warranty period is only up to 28.06.2006 during that period the complainants have not sought for replacement of the tractor alleging defectiveness by issuing any letter or notice. Under these circumstances, the complainants have failed to prove that they have sustained loss of Rs.2,00,000/- due to the defective tractor and they have spent Rs.1,40,000/- for repairs and therefore the complainants are not entitled to any relief sought for against the 1st & 2nd Opposite parties. Therefore, we answer the points against the complainants. 12. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 20th day of August 2008). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER) ctj
