Tripura

West Tripura

CC/59/2015

Sri Samir Das. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Progressive Motors & 4 others. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.G.S.Bhattacharjee, Mr.M.Debnath.

03 May 2016

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC-   59   of   2015

Sri Samir Das,
S/O- Lt. Rajmohan Das,
Betaga, Santirbazar,
P.O.- Betaga, P.S. Santirbazar,
Tripura South.                …...Complainant.

VERSUS

1. M/S Progressive Motors,
L.N. Bari Road, Ganaraj Choumuhani,
P.O. Agartala, P.S. East Agartala,
Tripura West.

2. Managing Partner,
M/S Progressive Motors,
L.N. Bari Road, 
Ganaraj Choumuhani,
P.O. Agartala, P.S. East Agartala,
Tipura West.

3. Managing Director,
Tripura Horticulture Corporation Ltd.,
RCDF Complex, P.O. Arundhutinagar,
Agartala, Tripura West.

4. Superintendent of Agriculture,
Office of the Supdt. of Agriculture,
Bagafa, P.O. Santirbazar,
Tripura South.

5. Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Santirbazar Branch,
P.O. & P.S. Santirbazar,
Tripura South.              .........Opposite parties.
   

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the complainant        : Sri Gouri Sankar Bhattacharjee,
                      Sri Monoj Debnath,
                      Advocates.

For the O.P. No. 1& 2        : Sri Purushuttam Roybarman,
                      Sri Bikramjit Bhattacharjee,
                      Smt. Suchismita Dhar,
                      Advocates.
 
For the O.P. No. 3            : Sri Abjijit Sengupta,
                      Advocate.

For the O.P. No. 4 & 5         : None appeared.

              
JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  03.05.2016

J U D G M E N T
        This case arises on the petition filed by one Samir Das U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. He filed the case against the M/S Progressive Motors, Laxmi Narayan Bari Road, Ganaraj Choumuhani, Managing Partner of Progressive Motors, Managing Director, Tripura Horticulture Corporation and also Superintendent of Agriculture, Branch Manager, State Bank of India. Case of the petitioner in short is that on the loan advanced by State Bank of India and the subsidy amount received from Horticulture and Agriculture Department a Mahindra Yuvraj Tractor was purchased by him from Progressive Motors. It was one year warranty. Within warranty period of one year the tractor was not working. There was defect while starting the engine. So, he made complaint before the Opposite Party and requested the Progressive Motors for replacing the same. But his request was turned down. So, the case filed for redress in this Forum. 
2.        After receipt of the notice opposite party No.1 and 2 M/S Progressive Motors Managing Partners of Progressive Motors did not appear to contest the case. So, case proceeded against them exparte. It is to be mentioned here that O.P. No.1 appeared but filed no written statement.         
3.        O.P. No.3 filed W/S denying the claim. It is stated that they are not necessary party and no relief against them. 2 witness has produced by the complainant and cross examined by O.P. No.3 as other O.Ps did not appear.
4.        Now in this case we shall decide: 
        (I) Whether the purchased tractor was defective one and demand for replacement was justified?
        (II) Whether there was deficiency of service by M/S Progressive Motors?
        FINDINGS:
5.        We have gone through the evidence given by the petitioner and also gone through the petition itself. From the evidence both oral and documentary we noticed that the Horticulture Department, Agriculture Department, State Bank of India are not necessary party. They played no role in respect of delivery of the defective tractor. State Bank only released the loan amount on the recommendation of Agriculture and Horticulture Department. Horticulture Department placed the order for supply. So, they are not necessary party and no relief sought against them. 
6.        From the evidence of the petitioner and other witness it is revealed that the tractor was defective one. Basudev Saha, P.W.2 supported the version of the complainant P.W.1. He stated that the tractor was not working properly and there was major defect in functioning of levers of the machine during operation of the tractor. The Engineer of the dealer opined that the discomfort will be removed after continual operation. Thereafter it did not start. The dealer did not provide any engineer or mechanic which was assured. Progressive Motors assured that the longevity was more than 5 years but cracks on the engine was found. The tractor was not working totally since 25.12.13. From the evidence of the petitioner it is found that the Yuvraj Tractor 215 was purchased on 17.11.12. But with the tractor the vital part was not delivered.  On 17.11.12 Managing Director, informed the rate Rs.2,35,211/-. On 20.06.13 distribution order of tractor was passed by superintendent, Agriculture. On 26.10.13 money receipt was issued by cashier Horticulture Corporation. The Progressive Motors received Rs.10,500/- from Samir Das on 04.01.13. Letter of arrangement issued on 22.10.13 by Branch Manager SBI. Supply order issued by Managing Director Tripura Horticulture Department on 26.10.13. This supply order was issued to Managing Partner, Progressive Motors, O.P. No.2. From the documents placed before us it is evident that actually the tractor purchased by Horticulture Department for use of the petitioner, Samir Das. Rotovator was purchased on 28.10.13. Request letter was sent by Superintendent of Agriculture and Progressive Motors sold the same to Samir Das on 08.11.13. Therefore, Samir Das, the petitioner was the Consumer though the tractor was purchased through Horticulture Department. As per warranty card, labour free coupon service are provided in the booklet. Machine was not working since 25.12.13. Rotovator was purchased on 28.10.13. So, within 2 months the machine stopped working totally. As per warranty company dealers is to repair, replace any part of the tractor found to be defective in materials or worthmenship in their opinion within 12 months or 750 hours of operation whichever occurs earlier. So, within the warranty period the machine stopped its functioning. The dealer Progressive Motors O.P. No.1 therefore are under liability to replace the defective parts or repair the tractor. But they failed to do so. From the evidence on record we are of clear opinion that the tractor was defective one and it was to be replaced. O.P. No.1 and 2 did not do so. It was deficiency of service. For that petitioner is entitled to get compensation. 
7.        We therefore, direct O.P. No.1 and 2, M/S Progressive Motors authorized dealer sale service centre to repair and replace the parts of the purchased tractor immediately and hand over the same to Sasmir Das. We also direct O.P. No.1 and 2 to pay Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner as compensation for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. This compensation given to the petitioner for his harassment after purchase of the defective tractor. Other O.Ps had no role and they are relieved from any liability. Case disposed of accordingly. Supply copy.      
                                
                    Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.