Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/96/2011

Jarnail Singh S/o Puran chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sheela Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Adesh Gupta

16 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                          Complaint No. 96 of 2011.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 03.02.2011 

                                                                                          Date of decision: 16.02.2017

 

Jarnail Singh aged about 45 years son of Shri Puran Chand, resident of village Jarodi, PO Mehlanwali, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.  

 

                                               …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. M/s Sheela Motors, Authorised Dealer, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., (Farm Equipment Sector), Near Buria Chowk, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar (Haryana) through its Proprietor.
2. Mahindra and Mahindra, Mahindra Tower, GM Bhosle Marg Worli, Mumbai-400018, through its Managing Director/Authorised Funtionary.

                                                                                                                                                        ...Respondents

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:           Shri Adesh Gupta, Advocate for complainant.

                         Shri VK Rojoria, Advocate for respondents.

ORDER

 

1                      The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 with the averments that complainant purchased a Tractor Mahindra and Mahindra 475 DI BP against consideration of Rs.4,05,000/- from the OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.2, which was delivered to the complainant on 6.05.2009. At the time of purchasing the Tractor in question, the OP No.1 assured that the complainant shall not feel any difficulty in using the said tractor, so purchased by him and the warranty of his tractor was for a period of Rs.24 months i.e. 2 year which they shall render that much service which is required for the same along with spare parts is found not in order and also further assured if there shall be any manufacturing defects in the engine of the tractor or any other manufacturing defect whatsoever, the tractor shall be replaced by the company in place of the defective one. After that on use of the tractor in question, it was found that consumption of diesel oil for the said tractor is being given 8 litre per hour, whereas it was assured by the dealer that it will consume 3 ½ or 4 litre diesel per hour in its working. It means that the tractor was consuming double quantity of diesel instead of the one, it was assured by them. Upon which the complainant visited the office of the OP No.1, who got it checked through their mechanics who also found the defect in the same as was pointed out by the complainant to them, but temporarily service of the pump was done and the defect as pointed out of more consumption remained in the same, so much so they should have to give free service during the warranty period, but the OP No.1 charged money of Rs.500/- for which they were not entitled but besides PTO Shaft, which rotate the rooter was also not working properly whereas it was in the warrantee and the OP No.1 charged Rs.1000/- under the name of its repair, whereas OP No.1 should not have charged anything during the currency of warranty period. The complainant visited the office of OP No.1 time and again and requested to repair the tractor in question or replace the same with new one but all in vain. However, complainant received the telephone message from the OP No.1, in which he was asked to take the tractor at work shop of the OP No.1 at Karnal, so that the technical expert shall check the tractor and remove the defect. On this, complainant took the tractor to the work shop at Karnal, the official of the OP kept the tractor for two days with them and after that tractor was again delivered to the complainant by saying that defect had been removed. Again the complainant put the tractor on work. The trouble was not solved and its consumption of diesel remained as it is and on telephone again the two mechanics came to the complainant and checked the tractor in question and found the defect un-removed and found another defect i.e. Tractor could not take load also. In this way, two defects namely consumption of more diesel and tractor was not taking load were found. The defects were not removed by the OP No.1 or OP No.2 despite so many requested due to which complainant has suffered financial loss and mental agony and is entitled to get compensation as well as loss of diesel to the tune of Rs.4,92,500/-  from the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objection such as; complainant  has no locus standi to file the present complaint as there was no negligency  or deficiency in the service on the part of OP No.1; complaint of the complainant is time barred as the said tractor was purchased on 06.05.2009 whereas the present complaint has been filed after the lapse of statutory period of 2 years. Moreover, guarantee period of the part for which the complainant is alleging is that of 12 months or 1000 hours whichever is earlier; this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and on merit it has been stated that complainant himself visited showroom of the OP No.1 and purchased the tractor in question. It has been further mentioned that tractor make Mahindra and Mahindra is of the best quality due to which complainant himself showed his willingness to purchase the tractor in question. It has been further mentioned that all the documents were handed over to the complainant because had these documents were not handed over to the complainant, it was not possible to get the registration certificate of the Tractor. Rest content of the complaint were denied being wrong and incorrect. It has been specifically denied that OP No.1 ever assured that consumption of diesel of the said tractor shall be in between 8 litres per hour. In fact the claimed consumption of the diesel oil is 3 ½  / 4 litres per hour. Further, the complainant had approached the OP No.1 after one year for service of the tractor in question and Rs.500/- were charged by MICO. Further, the complainant himself wrongly fitted shaft on the tractor due to which various parts including ball barring etc. were to be repaired and it is work of Kharadia to repair these ball barring  and on that account Rs.1000/- were charged by the Kharadia on account of work and other expenses. It has been also further specifically denied that tractor was not taking load and any telephonic message was given to the bring the tractor at Karnal. In fact, the minor problem which the complainant had alleged were removed at service center of the OP No.1 and thereafter, no sort of problem was found in the tractor. Lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua the OP No.1.

3.                     OP No.2 also appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objection such as transaction between the OP No.2 and OP No.1  are on principle to principle basis. OP No.1 used to place bulk orders for tractor and this OP used to supply tractors in large numbers. M/s Mahindra and Mahindra  Limited will not know about ultimate buyer of the tractor at the time of purchase. M/s Mahindra and Mahindra Limited never had any transaction with the complainant and therefore there is no privity of contract between the complainant and manufacturing company; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and on merit all the contents of the complainant were denied being wrong and incorrect and matter of record. It has been further mentioned that the complainant had approached the OP No.1 after one year from the purchase of tractor in question and requested Rs.500/- were charged for MICO. The complainant has not intentionally a date when the complainant came for service at Karnal. Even no job Card had been filed. Further it has been mentioned that the full consumption depends upon driving habit/gear selection/engine RPM/implement used/soil condition and depth of cut. Lastly, it has been prayed there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.2 and requested for dismissal of complaint qua the OP No.2.

4.                     In support of his case learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A, photocopy of warranty forum as Annexure C-1, photocopy of registration certificate as Annexure C-2, photocopy of Insurance Policy as Annexure C-3, photocopy of repair bill issued by OP No.1 as Annexure C4 to C6, report of Local Commissioner as Annexure C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand evidence on behalf of OP No.1 was closed by Shri Manjit Chawla, Partner of OP No.1 by tendering affidavit as Annexure RW/A.

6.                     However, no evidence on behalf of OP No.2 was filed.  

7.                     We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

8.                     It is not disputed that complainant purchased a Tractor make Mahindra 465 DI manufactured  by the OP No.2 from the OP No.1 on 06.05.2009 and paid Rs.4,05,000/- in cash to the OP No.1. The only grievances of the complainant is that firstly the OP No.1 has not handed over cash memo, warranty card and other relevant documents i.e. service card and on asking and demanding the same by the complainant he put off the matter on one pretext or the other. But this plea of the complainant is not tenable, as the complainant has himself placed on file photocopy of registration certificate (Annexure C-2), photocopy of warranty form (Annexure C-1), had the OP No.1 not handed over the cash memo and other relevant papers to the complainant, it was not possible to get the registration certificate of the tractor in question. Second grievance of the complainant is that at the time of selling the tractor in question, the OP No.1 gave assurance that tractor in question will consume 3 ½ or 4 litre diesel per hour in its working whereas it was found that tractor in question was consuming 8 litre per hour, for which he visited so many times to the service centre of the OP No.1 at Yamuna Nagar as well as at Karnal. But, the OP No.1 could not rectify the defect from the tractor in question but this plea of the complainant is also not tenable as the complainant has totally failed to place on file any job card/job sheet vide which he get the service of the tractor in question. Even, the complainant did not bother to summon the record from the OP No.1 or any other service centre from which he got the serviced the tractor in question. The complainant has placed on file only some bills dated 15.11.2010 amounting to Rs.2103/-, bill dated 30.10.2010 amounting Rs.50/- and bill dated 14.07.2009 amounting Rs.1968/- (Annexure C-4 to C-6), whereas from the perusal of these bills it reveals that only charges on account of service kit and oil seal has been charged by the OP No.1. Furthermore, in these bills neither the registration number of Tractor in question nor the name of the complainant is mentioned. So it cannot be said that these bills are relating to the tractor in question. Even no job sheet has been filed in support of these bills. Furthermore, out of these bills one is dated 14.07.2009 (Annexure C-6), Second is dated 30.10.2010 (Annexure C-5), third one is dated 15.11.2010 (Annexure C-4) in which only charges has been shown as on account of service kit and greasing etc. So from the perusal of these bills it cannot be presumed that there was any manufacturing defect in the tractor in question as alleged by the complainant in his complaint. In the absence of any job sheet, it cannot be said that there was any manufacturing defect in the tractor in question, regarding which complainant lodged any complaint with the OP No.1 in respect of any mileage/ fuel consumption or any manufacturing defect for not taking proper load, as alleged in the complaint.

9.                     Learned counsel for the complainant draws our attention towards the Local Commissioner report (Annexure C-7) and argued that in this report also it has been mentioned that Tractor in question was consuming the diesel oil 700 gm more and when the Tractor was started in low gear in 4^th gear for half an hour then it consumed 2.100 litre more diesel, which proves manufacturing defect in the tractor in question, but these arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant are also not tenable as this report has been issued by one Krishan Kumar, ITI Yamuna Nagar on 24.07.2014. After inspecting the Tractor in question on 22.07.2014 whereas the tractor in question was purchased by the complainant on 06.05.2009, meaning thereby that tractor in question was examined for the alleged defect after a period of more than 05 years. So, we are of the considered view that this report has no weightage for considering that the Tractor in question was consuming more oil. Moreover, as per this report, there was 700 gm more consumption of the diesel oil of the tractor in question which may be due to the fact that the same is 05 year old and due to non-service of the tractor in question in time. The complainant has not placed on file any service record of the Tractor in question to prove that he has ever got the service of tractor in question as per schedule of the warranty card. It also can not overlook that the mileage of any vehicle depends on many other factors i.e. driving habit/gear selection/Engine RPM / implements use/soil condition and depth of cut. Hence in the absence of the cogent evidence, the plea of the complainant that the tractor in question was consuming more diesel oil is not tenable and the same cannot be accepted. The third plea of the complainant is that tractor in question was not taking proper loaded is also not tenable as no such evidence has been placed on file to prove the same.

10.                   Further, it is not the case of the complainant that OP No.1 has not provided or attended the complaints whatsoever made by the complainant properly as and when he approached to the OP No.1. The version of the OPs that complainant approached the service centre of the OP No.1 after one year from the date of purchase of tractor in question has not been rebutted by the complainant by placing any job card of the tractor in question or otherwise on file.

11.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the complaint as the complainant has totally failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, we have no option expect to dismiss the present complaint. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. Parties are left to bear to their own cost. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Pronounced in open court: 16.02.2017.

                                                                                          (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

                                                                                           DCDRF Yamuna Nagar

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER