DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 12th day of February, 2020
C.D Case No. 30 of 2017
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
Sri Ratnakar Pati
S/o Dasarathi Pati,
Vill: Artung,
Po: Barapur,
Ps: Basudevpur,
Dist: Bhadrak
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. M/S The Winner,
Authorized Dealer, Mahindra Tractors,
Chhapulia, By-pass,
Po/Ps: Bhadrak (T), Dist: Bhadrak,
At present- At: N.H- 5, Nalanga,
Po: Gelpur, Ps: Bhadrak (R), Dist: Bhadrak
2. The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd.
At/Po/Ps: Bhadrak (T), Dist: Bhadrak
3. M/S Mahindra & Mahindra Tractor Ltd.
Firm Division, Akruli Road,
Kandivili, East (Mumbai)- 400101
…………………………..Opp. Parties
Counsel For Complainant: Sri T. K. Das, Adv & Others
Counsel For the OP No. 1: Ex-Parte
Counsel For the OP No. 2: Sri L. Nayak, Adv & Others
Counsel For the OP No. 3: Sri S. Tripathy, Adv & Others
Date of hearing: 10.09.2019
Date of order: 12.02.2020
RAGHUNATH KAR, PRESIDENT
This dispute arises out of the complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the O.Ps to the effect that being interested to purchase a tractor for business and cultivation, the complainant approached OP No. 1 who is the proprietor of M/S Winner, in the month of February 2015. As he had not got enough money to pay the total cost of the tractor, he want to the OP No. 2 and requested to finance the loan to purchase a Mahindra Tractor. Accordingly, the OP No. 1 had prepared a quotation for Mahindra 265 BP Model tractor of Rs 6,43,000/- only subject to the terms and conditions therein. In course of the processing of sanction of loan by OP No. 2 total sum of Rs 2,23,000/- was deposited on behalf of complainant towards the processing fees, earnest money etc. before the OP No. 1. Thereafter on 31.12.2015, the loan agreement was made between OP No. 2 and as per the agreement 16 quarterly installment amounting of Rs 30,189/- was fixed for repayment. Subsequently the OP No. 1 delivered the Mahindra 265 HP Model tractor bearing Regd. No. OD-22E-2876 having chassis No. RVBH00680 and Engine No. RVEH00680 to the complainant. Soon after purchase of the tractor, it showed some minor mechanical problem. The complainant mend the same by local mechanic and make the same motor able. But, after a couple of months the said tractor again breakdown on the road due to some engine problem. The complainant apprised the matter to the OP No. 1. Thereafter, as per the instruction of mechanics complainant purchased some parts from OP No. 1 and repaired the same after spending a lot. Subsequently, few months after, again the same mechanical defects of the tractor replaced in the month of August 2016. The complainant went to the office of OP No. 1 and informed the matter. Thereafter, as per the instruction of OP No. 1 a mechanic tried to mend the tractor and found some parts to be defective. As per the instruction of mechanic on 22.08.2016, the complainant purchased some parts of Rs 12,354/- from the OP No. 1 and after spending nearly about Rs 25,000/- make his tractor to the motor able condition. Nearly about a month the said tractor did not run or fetch any income. Later on again, the said tractor found to be suffered from some sort of mechanical defects in the month of November 2016. So, the complainant took his tractor to the show room of OP No. 1, where he had to spent near about Rs 30,000/- to correct the mechanical defects. In the meanwhile the complainant has paid three installment amount to the OP No. 2 after much difficulty, despite his tractor was not running on the road and not generating any income for half of the period from purchase. In the meanwhile, as the said tractor was found to be defective again and again, the complainant took his vehicle to as experienced mechanic, who told him that, the said tractor is a manufacturing defective tractor, after thoroughly checked it and he advised that it should be either replaced for smooth functioning of the same or it’s engine may be changed. Accordingly, in March 2017, complainant apprised the matter to the OP No. 1 and requested him to replace the tractor as it is a manufacture/defective tractor or it’s engine may be substituted. However, initially the OP No. 1 tried to convince the complainant by some pretext or other but when he did not relent, OP No. 1 flatly denied to do the same and misbehaved with the complainant. This highhanded act of the OP No. 1 amounts to shree deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant is required to be compensated for the some to the tune of Rs 50,000/- by the OP No. 1. The cause of action of this case arose on 31.03.2017, when the OP No. 1 flatly refused the request of the complainant to replace the tractor and misbehaved with him and on 10.04.2017, when OP No. 2 threatened the complainant to seize the tractor.
Hence the complainant has sought for the following reliefs.
1. The OP No. 1 & 3 be directed to replace the manufacturing defective tractor by providing a new one.
2. OP No. 1 & 3 be directed to pay Rs 50,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony and harassment.
3. The OP No. 2 be directed not to seize the vehicle and not to impose any additional interest during the continuance of the CD Case.
Documents filed by the complainant (Xerox copies).
1. Adhar Card of the complainant- 1 sheet.
2. Money receipt- 4 sheets.
3. Payment schedule of ICICI Bank- 1 sheet.
4. Registration certificate- 1 sheet.
5. Photo copy of bills- 4 sheets.
6. Payment sheet- 1 sheet.
On the other hand the OP No. 2 has appeared and his written version through his concerned advocate. As the OP No. 2 has made compromise with the complainant out of the Forum and the matter has been settled between them so the description of written version of the OP No. 2 need not be necessary for passing the order. On 02.08.2017 in the order No. 6 the OP No. 1 has been set ex-parte due his non appearance and non filing of written version.
OP No. 3 has also appeared to his concerned advocate and filed his written version. The OP No. 3 denied all the allegations made by the complainant against him. He has also stated that the complaint is liable to be dismissed because the OP No. 3 is not the necessary and proper party to this case. According to the warranty manual all the vehicles manufactured by Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. should be produced before the authorized service station if any defect arose, bur here the complainant placed his tractor before a local mechanic to make the same motor able. So the complainant has lapsed his warranty coverage as per the warranty manual. The allegation of manufacturing defects has no meaning without any export opinion. The complainant has not whispered a single sentence against the OP No. 3 towards deficiency of service. The OP No. 3 has no role to play in this case since there is no such issue of manufacturing defect or post sale allegation regarding providing of service. The present complaint is without any cause of action OP No. 3 and is therefore deserves to be dismissed. It is also submitted that the transactions and dealings have been made between the complainant and the OP No. 1. The OP No. 1 is not the agent of the OP No. 3. The vehicle manufactured by OP No. 3 is purchased by OP No. 1 to release the same to its own customers. The OP No. 1 is no more an authorized dealer of answering OP and since long business transaction was terminated with him. The OP No. 3 further submits that facts are matters of record regarding sale, purchase and payment of money for purchasing of tractor and transactions taken place between complainant, OP No. 1 & 2. Since answering OP is no way concerned with such dealings taken place, therefore denies the facts and allegations, if any, against answering OP. In reply to Para- 4 answering OP submits that the allegations made by the complainant are against OP No. 1 and matter taken place regarding sale and purchase between the parties, wherein the answering OP is not a party to the transactions taken place and OP No. 1 purchases the vehicles from answering OP and sales to its own customer. The complainant should put strict proof of the allegation. The OP No. 3 further submit that he is ready to rectify if any defects arose in the tractor in a good will service to a bonafide customer subject to production of tractor by the complainant before local authorized service station. Finally the OP No. 3 has prayed for the dismissal of this complaint.
OBSERVATION
We have already perused the complaint and documents filed by the complainant. The OP No. 1 has neither appeared in this Forum nor filed his written version. Hence has been set ex-parte. After granting sufficient scope to the OP No. 1 he has neglected appearing, filing written version and concerned documents. Hence the authenticity of this case has been suppressed by the OP No. 1 to some extent the OP No. 2 has appeared in this Forum through his concerned advocate and filed his documents and written version. Subsequently the matter has been amicable settled between the complainant and OP No. 2 beyond this Forum on basis of a compromise meme filed by the OP No. 2. So said OP No. 2 has been exempted from the liabilities which was fixed upon him. The OP No. 2 is the manufacturing company. The complainant has imposed much more emphasis upon the OP No. 3 because the engine of the vehicle was suffering from manufacturing defect of the said vehicle. The complainant has described in his complaint about the purchase of the vehicle that the said vehicle means the tractor vide registration No. OD-22E-2876 having chassis No. RVBH00680. The OP No. 1 delivered Mahindra 265H model tractor bearing registration No. OD-22E-2876 having chassis No. RVBH00680 and engine No. RVEH00680 to the complainant. The complainant has failed to mention the date on which the vehicle was purchased but he has stated that in the month of August 2016 some defects were found in the said engine. Hence the complainant informed this matter the office of the OP No. 1, according to his instruction a mechanics was deployed to mend the said tractor but after examining the said tractor the mechanics opined that some parts of the engine was damaged and defunct. The said vehicle required some new parts to repair the defunct engine. According to the instructions and advice of the said mechanics the complainant purchased the some parts which were cost of Rs 12,354/-. The complainant has also alleged that he has spent Rs 30,000/- for repairing the engine in the showroom of OP No. 1. The non appearance and non filing of written version by the OP No. 1 reveals that the complainants allegation against the OP No. 1 authenticated. On the other hand the complainant has made allegation regarding the manufacturing defect but he has failed to submit any representation made by him against the OP No. 3, as well as he has failed to submit any document with regard to the manufacturing defect of the said engine. The complainant has also neither filed any document against the OP No. 3 regarding the deficiency of service nor he could his case against him.
Hence the liability of deficiency of service has been fixed upon the OP No. 1 only. The OP No. 2 & 3 are exempted from any liability. Hence it is ordered;
ORDER
The complaint be and the same is allowed on part against OP No. 1 on ex-parte. The OP No. 1is here by directed to pay Rs 50,000/- towards the repairing expenses of the engine through the private mechanic and in the showroom of the OP No. 1. OP No. 1 is also directed to pay Rs 10,000/- to the complainant towards the cost and compensation for deficiency of service and cost of the litigation to the complainant caused by the OP No. 1. The OP No. 1 is further directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant within 30 days on receipt of copy of this order failing which OP No. 1 is liable to pay 9% interest to the complainant.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 12th February, 2020 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
