Punjab

Sangrur

CC/501/2016

Lakha Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sutlej Tractors - Opp.Party(s)

Shri S.K.Hareri

24 Jan 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 501                                                                                        

                                                                   Instituted on:  19.08.2016

                                                                   Decided on:    24.01.2017

 

Lakha Singh son of Mukhand Singh resident of village Jharon, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.  

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         

Versus

 

1.     M/s Sutlej Tractors, Lehra Road, near Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur ( authorized dealer of Sonalike International Tractor) through its proprietor/ partner.

 

2.     Sonalika International Tractors Limited, Village Chak Gujran, P.O. Piplanwala,  Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur, through its authorized Signatory.

      ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri S.K. Hareri,  Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1     :    Shri Kamal Singla, Advocate.                   

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.2     :    Shri Rohit Jain,  Advocate.                   

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Lakha Singh complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on 01.02.2016 he purchased Sonalika Tractor model No. DI-750 from OP no.1 under one year guarantee and paid entire amount after getting financed Rs.4,82,000/-  from L&T Finance Company to OP no.1. After some time said tractor started giving problems of engine, radiator leakage, self problem, alternator problem and clutch problem. The complainant number of times requested the OPs to repair or replace the defective tractor but flatly refused to do so.   Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to replace the defective tractor with new one or to refund the purchase price of the same along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization along with all documents i.e. R.C. and insurance policy.

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)     OPs be directed to pay Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OP no.1,  it is admitted that the complainant  has got financed the tractor from L&T finance company of Rs.4,77,600/-  instead of Rs.4,82,000/- . After adjusting the loan amount of Rs.4,77,600/-  and  the value of the old tractor there is an amount of Rs.65,477/-  i.e. Rs.12377/- of insurance charges plus Rs.2000/- of R.C. plus Rs.3700/- as  interest @18%  per annum w.e.f. 13.02.2016  to 12.07.2016  , is outstanding towards the complainant till today and OP is entitled to recover the said amount from the complainant. It is stated that when on 18.02.2016 the complainant came  to the service centre of OP then the employee  of OP had informed the complainant that second service  will have to be made  after using the tractor  between 250-300 hrs. but the complainant had visited  after using the tractor  after 519 hrs. So the complainant is personally liable  for the same due to delay service of tractor.  Insurance charges  and R.C.charges are outstanding towards the complainant so he intentionally did not approach the OP no.1.

3.             In reply filed by the OP no.2,  it is submitted that OP no.2 is manufacturer  of  Sonalika Brand of Tractors and OP no.1 is authorized dealer of OPs.  It is submitted that the OP no.2 never deals with any customer directly.  It is submitted that OP no.2 has no concern whatsoever  with payment for R.C and insurance or issuance of R.C.  and insurance. If any  customer enters into any dealing with the dealer to get the R.C and insurance then this is the dealing between the complainant and OP no.1. It is totally wrong and denied that there was any problem or defect in the tractor as alleged in the complaint.  It is further submitted that the tractor was brought by complainant  or his representative  for free service on 18.02.2016 and 13.04.2016 and no defect was pointed out or found and the service was done to the entire  satisfaction of complainant.  It is further mentioned that after fully satisfaction representative of the complainant signed  the job card.

4.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the OPs have tendered documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/8, Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/2 and closed evidence.

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the complainant has produced on record delivery challan  dated 01.12.2016 which is Ex.C-5 and same is in the name of Lakha Singh  but in the lower part of it  there is a sign of Binder Singh. The OP no.1 has also produced on record retail invoice  dated 13.08.2016 for purchase of Sonalika Tractor for an amount of Rs.6,10,000/- Ex.OP1/3 which is in the name of one Binder Singh. Surprisingly the complainant has not produced on record retail invoice of his name for purchase of tractor in dispute of Sonalika company from the  OP no.1. The complainant has produced on record an affidavit of Shri Gurtej Singh Ex.C-3  who is stated himself  a tractor mechanic wherein  he has stated that in the month of  June 2016,  he checked the tractor of the complainant  and found that there were engine problem,  radiator leakage, self problem, alternator problem and clutch problem which are due to manufacturing defect in the tractor. It is also strange that the complainant has not filed any detailed report of said mechanic explaining the defect  and its reason in detail. Moreover, the present complaint was filed on 19.08.2016 whereas the affidavit of Gurtej Singh Ex.C-3 is dated 06.12.2016 which is later on about four months of filing the present complaint and  the complainant has not mentioned about the inspection from Gurtej Singh mechanic in the present complaint. In Gurmeet Kaur Vs. Edelweiss Tokio Life Insurance Company Limited  & Others,  2016 (4) CLT 187, Hon'ble Punjab State Commission has held that  in case there  are no such pleadings in the complaint to that effect then no such evidence  can be led by the complainant beyond pleadings. From the perusal of above said record, we find that the evidence produced by the complainant is not clear cut evidence in his favour rather the same is also ambiguous evidence. The OP no.1 has also produced on record copy of job card dated 18.02.2016 Ex.OP1/5  and job card dated 13.04.2016 Ex.OP1/4 but further surprisingly in both the job cards there is no mention about the defects in the tractor in question.

6.             In view of the facts stated above, we feel that the complainant has totally failed to prove that there is any defect/ manufacturing defect in the tractor in question. Accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed however with no order as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.     

                Announced

                January 24, 2017

 

 

 

( Vinod Kumar Gulati)  ( Sarita Garg)               (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                       Member                   Member                         President

 

 

 

 

 

BBS/-