BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.21 of 2014

Date of Instt. 21.1.2014

Date of Decision :21.11.2014

Khushal Singh, aged about 60 years son of Sampuran Singh, R/o Village Behra, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Punjab Choice Motors, Noormahal Road, Nakodar, Jalandhar, through its Prop/Partner/Authorized Representative.

2. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, Swaraj Division, Plot No.725, Basement, Udyog Vihar, Near Traindi Hotel, Gurgagaon(Haryana) through its Director/Managing Director/Authorized Representative.

.........Opposite party

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.MK Jain Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased a Swaraj Tractor bearing Engine No.381339/SSE1411A, Chassis No.WRTE14405141273, Model 2013 from the opposite party for Rs.3,65,000/- vide invoice No.864 dated 24.5.2013. The above said tractor has been registered in the name of complainant in the office of DTO, Jalandhar vide registration No.PB-08-CH-3732 which RC is valid upto 30.6.2028. Two years warranty was given for above said tractor by the opposite parties and at the time of sale of said tractor the opposite party assured and told the complainant that in case of any complaint or defect if arisen in the said tractor the same shall be removed immediately free of cost. After two months from the date of purchase i.e within warranty period various defects arose in the said tractor. At first its back lift failed to work, then its engine piston ball became loose and fell down, then gear shifting problem started. When down shifting or up shifting the gear its takes a lot of power and hardship. Its pick-up is very low. When climbing up it begin to slow down and show a lack of power. The complainant brought the above defect into the notice of opposite party No.1. The complainant handed over the above said tractor to opposite party No.1 for repair and removal of the above said defects. The opposite party No.1 told the complainant that all the above mentioned defects have been removed. An authorized representative of opposite party No.1 gave a certificate in his own handwriting to complainant that if any part fail to work in the engine of said tractor within two years then the repair shall be done free of cost within warranty period. After some time the same problems and defects arose in the said tractor i.e its back lift does not work properly, its engine piston ball become loose, when down shifting or up shifting the gear it takes a lot of power and hardship. Its pick-up is low. When climbing up it begin to slow down and show a lack of power. The complainant again brought the above defects into the notice of opposite party No.1 and requested to rectify the defects free of cost as promised as per their certificate. The opposite party No.1 checked the defects of said tractor and told the complainant that they have no spare time to rectify the said defects again and again and further told the complainant that if the complainant wants to get rectified the said defects then a huge amount shall be borne by him for repair and for replacement of some parts of engine. Despite several requests the opposite parties neither replaced the engine nor defective parts and have totally failed to rectify the defects which amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on the parts of opposite parties. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to replace the engine of the tractor with new one or in the alternative to refund full price of the tractor alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their written replies. In its written reply, opposite party No.1 pleaded that the complainant has not got any service from the opposite party as per requirements nor the complainant ever lodged any complaint with the opposite party regarding any defect in the tractor. As per job card of an other workshop, it was reported regarding problem of cylinder, liner failure, which was rectified and the tractor was delivered to the satisfaction of the complainant. There was no other problem reported in the tractor as per job card. As per the report of Mr.Bhupinder Kaushal and Mr.Saurav, who belong to the manufacturing company, there is certain modification in the tractor which were not recommended by the company, which are as below:-

a) The complainant has broken fuel pump seal to increase the diesel supply, which would overload the engine.

b) Trailer hook attached by the customer is also non-genuine. The hook is used to pull over load which can attach the tractor more than 50 HP whereas the tractor in question is only 26.5 HP(S.A.E.). The hook was not provided by the company and the complainant has got it fabricated and attached to the tractor. There was also a loaded trolley attached with the tractor, which is recommended only for 50 HP. The complainant has attached trolley of 8.55 which is only attachable to a tractor of 55 HP, whereas the HP of the present tractor is 24 to 30 HP. Despite the above said facts, the customer was asked to send his tractor in the workshop, but despite repeated requests by the company, he failed to do so. The tractor is meant for agricultural purposes, but the complainant was using the same for commercial purposes. There is no problem in gear shifts. If there is such problem, the manufacturing company of the opposite party is ready and willing to remove the same. The manufacturing company of the opposite party is also ready to provide all permissible services under the warranty. It denied other material averments of the complaint.

3. The written statement filed by opposite party No.2 is also on the same line as that of opposite party No.1.

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB along with copies of documents Ex. C1 to C3 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavits Ex.O1, Ex.O2 and Ex.C-C alongwith copies of documents Ex.O3 and O4 and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also the complainant in person and learned counsel for the opposite party.

7. The complainant purchased the Swaraj Tractor vide retail invoice dated 24.5.2013 Ex.C1 for Rs.3,65,000/-. According to the complainant, after two months from the date of purchase i.e during warranty period, various defects arose in it. He contended that its back lift failed to work, its engine piston ball became loose and while changing the gear lot of power was required. He further contended that its pick-up is very low and while climbing tractor slow down and show a lack of power. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the opposite parties that the complainant never visited opposite party No.1 for repair of any defect, however, he got the service done from some other workshop and as per their job card problem reported was regarding cylinder and liner failure which was rectified and tractor was delivered back to the complainant to his satisfaction. He contended that no other problem was reported in the tractor. He further contended that if there is any other problem in the tractor, the opposite parties are ready to rectify the same as per terms and conditions of the warranty. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by both the parties. The complainant has not examined any expert witness to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the tractor. In case there is any defect in the tractor then during warranty period, the opposite parties at most are liable to repair or rectify the defect. The complainant has not produced any job card to show that he reported problems mentioned in the complaint to the opposite parties. However he has reported some problem to other workshop and opposite parties have produced the job card Ex.O4 in that regard. In the job card Ex.O4, the problems which the complainant is alleging in his complaint are not mentioned. What ever problems were reported by the complainant were rectified and the complainant received back the tractor. The job card Ex.O4 is signed by the complainant. In case there is any defect in the tractor then opposite parties are still ready to rectify the same. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the opposite parties stated at bar that the complainant may take the tractor to any authorized workshop of the opposite party and the defects in the tractor, if any, shall be removed as per terms and condition of the warranty free of cost.

8. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is partly accepted and complainant is directed to take his tractor to the workshop of the opposite party No.1 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter opposite parties are directed to remove the defects in the tractor of the complainant free of cost without any undue delay. The complainant is awarded Rs.5000/- in lump sump on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

21.11.2014 Member President