Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/121/2016

Sajjan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Baba Gyan Nath - Opp.Party(s)

Naveen Tanwar

29 Jan 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                  Consumer Complaint No. : 121 of 2016

                  Date of Institution             : 14.06.2016

                                                           Date of Decision               :  29.01.2024

 

Sajjan Kumar son of Sh. Ramji Lal R/o village Jui Khurd Tehsil and District Bhiwani (Haryana).

          ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. M/s Shri Baba Gyan Nath Auto Company Loharu Road, Bhiwani (authorized dealer for Sonalika) through its Prop./Partner.

 

2. M/s Baba Gyan Nath Auto Co. Head Office; New Auto Market, G.T. Road, Hansi District Hisar through its Manager/authorized person.

 

3. L & T. Finance Company, Gate No.2, Additional Grain Market, Hisar (Haryana) through its Manager/Authorized signatory.

 

4. M/s International Tractor Ltd.,/Sonalika Tractors Sales, Regional Office: C/o Kuldeep Singh H.No.902, Sector-7, Ambala City, Haryana through its Manager/Authorized signatory.

 

5. M/s International Tractor Ltd.,/Sonalika Tractors, Head Office: Village Chak Gujran, P.O. Piplanwala Jallandhar Road, Hoshiyarpur (Punjab), through its M.D/ Authorized Signatory.

 

6. M/s International Tractor Ltd., /Sonalika Tractors Corporate Office: Pankaj Plaza-I, Plot No.2, Karkarduma, Community Center, Commercial Complex, New Delhi through its M.D./Authorized Signatory.

 

….. Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 2019.

 

 

BEFORE:     Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. Roshan Lal Sangwan, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Subhash Bhati, Advocate for OP No.1.

Sh. J.P. Tanwar, Advocate for OP No.3.

Sh. I.S. Punia, Advocate for OP No.5.

OPs No. 2 & 4 given up vide statement dated 04.11.2016.  

OP No.6 exparte vide order dated 05.09.2016.

 

ORDER

 

Saroj Bala  Bohra, Presiding Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant was doing agriculture work in 12 acres of land for his livelihood, in which trees of Kinnu, Moshami  and Malta etc. were planted.  Complainant purchased a new Sonalika DI-20 Tractor, Model 2015, Engine No.A-23822, Chassis No.MNGSU479050G, 20 HP  in Rs.3.00 lacs alongwith rotavator of Rs.35,000/- vide quotation No.199 dated 29.12.2014 and invoice/bill No.450 dated 26.02.2015 from OP No.1 and thus is owner of the said tractor & rotavator. Complainant has alleged that OP No.1 gave full guarantee of the tractor and rotavator but after 15 days of its purchasing, the tractor became defective and was not running properly allegedly defects in gear box, drum, temperature very high and rotavator plates and also was giving less mileage.  So, he approached OP No.1 who assured that the tractor and rotavator will be replaced with new one, probably after a week. In the meantime, complainant may contact with OP No.2 for this purpose. Later on, complainant was apprised to come after 10 days but the tractor was not replaced from March 2015 to May 2015. Allegedly, complainant has gained loss of Rs.1,25,000/- and thus could not deposit six installments i.e. Rs.37,000/- to the OP No.3-finance company. However, in the last week of May 2015, OP No.1 only repaired the said tractor and rotavator.  Complainant has submitted that in the month of November 2015, the tractor and rotavator again got defective and did not work properly, upon which, complainant approached OP No.1 and tractor & rotavator was left there at their instance, even then, no fruitful came out.  As per complainant, he again suffered loss of Rs.1.50 lac on account of labour charges. So, legal notices dated 12.02.2016 & 03.03.2016 were issued upon the OPs but of no avail despite reply of OP No.5; and intimation of OP No.1 qua custody of the tractor.  Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service and issuing directions to OPs to replace the defective tractor & rotavator with new one or to return the amount of Rs.3,35,000/- as its costs. Further, to pay Rs.3,12,000/- which includes labour charges/loss to complainant and installment due to finance company. Also to pay a sum of Rs.1.00 lac as compensation for harassment, alongwith interest @ 18% per annum till final payment. Any other relief, to which this Commission deem fit may also be awarded in favour of complainant.

2.                 Upon notice, contesting Ops appeared through counsel and tendered their written statement to the complaint.  OP No.1 while filing the W.S., raised preliminary objections qua cause of action, locus standi, non-maintainability of complaint and non-joinder & mis-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it has submitted that at the time of purchase of the alleged tractor, only warranty was given alongwith instructions but no warranty of blades of rotovator was given and instructions were contained in the pamphlet that overload is not allowed in the tractor while in use. Further, it has been submitted that during warranty period, complainant complained regarding defect in gear box and clutch system and answering OP immediately informed this fact to the manufacturing company and defects were removed by replacing spare parts, to the satisfaction of complainant. It is submitted that other free services were also provided to the complainant.  The Op has alleged that complainant not paid the cost of rotovator to the tune of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.3500/- as service charge. Thus a sum of Rs.33500/- is due towards the complainant at the time of taking delivery of the tractor after second service.  It is submitted that the complainant parked the tractor at his own sweet will and failed to take back the same after making due payment. In the end, OP denied any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                 OPs No. 4 to 6 filed their joint written statement raising preliminary objections qua suppression of material facts, non-joinder & and mis-joinder of necessary parties and maintainability of complaint. On merits, it has submitted that the answering OPs are manufacturer of the tractor in question and OP No.1 is its authorized dealer and the answering OP appoints its dealers on principal to principal basis and the tractors are sent to the dealers on payment basis and then the dealers further sells the same to their customers against their own invoice and thus answering OP never deals with any customer directly.  There is no privity of contract in between the complainant and the answering OP. It is stated that the alleged rotavator is not manufactured by the answering OP.  It is submitted that as per warranty policy, the tractor once sold can be repaired but not replaced or refund of its price. In the end, loss suffered by complainant, assurance of replacement of the tractor by OP and deficiency in service on its part have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                 Complainant side, in evidence, tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-19 and closed the evidence on 17.01.2018.

5.                 On the other side, OP No.1 tendered documents Annexure R1/A to Annexure R1/I and closed the evidence on 29.09.2022.

6.                 No evidence produced on behalf of OP No.3. As such, evidence of OP No.3 was closed by Court vide order dated 29.09.2022.

7.                 No evidence tendered on behalf of OP No.5 and it was closed by the counsel vide his statement dated 04.02.2021.

8.                 We have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the record minutely.

9.                 At the outset, it is not in dispute that the tractor in question was purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 which was manufactured by OP No.5. Perusal of sell letter of the tractor (Annexure C-5) reveals that it was purchased by complainant in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. Further perusal of record reveals that an application for appointment of local Commission was moved on behalf of complainant whereupon Mechanical Engineer of Haryana Roadways was directed to inspect the tractor as well as rotavator pertaining to complainant and to submit its detailed report.  On 14.12.2018, the tractor was inspected by Sh. Ravish Hooda, Works Manager (Mechanical Engineer), Haryana Roadways, Bhiwani and submitted report, which is reproduced as under:-

 (1)     The trial and inspection was carried out for 30 minutes in the presence of all the parties concerned.

(2)      There was no noise in the gear box. The gears were engaging very smoothly and without problem.

(3)      There was no noise in the wheel drum. The drum was not heat up during and after the trial.

(4)      During the trial the temperature of the engine did not show any variation. It remained constant in the green field and behaves normally.

(5)      During the trial the land was cultivated for near about 30 minutes. The rotavator cultivated the land properly. There was no breakup or breakdown in the rotavator plates. The tractor and rotavator cultivate the land smoothly even without any operator during the trial.

(6)      The tractor during the trial was operated by the complainant, his son, the mechanics of tractor agency and by the mechanical engineer of Haryana Roadways, Bhiwani. The tractor consumed approximately 700 ml diesel in 30 minutes when operated by the above operators. Thus it will consume 1400 ml approx. in 1 hours which is not on higher side.

10.               Learned counsel for contesting OPs have argued that the tractor was not having any manufacturing defect and the allegation raised in the complaint are false and thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.

11.               On the other side, learned counsel for complainant has argued that the report is false one and has been prepared at the instance of OPs. The counsel pointed out that 30 minutes inspection trial of the tractor by Engineer concerned is not sufficient to find out the defects as raised in the complaint. As such, the counsel vehemently argued that the complaint may be allowed, as prayed for.  To strengthen his case, the counsel has relied upon a case law delivered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision, in case titled Krishanpal Singh Vs. Tata Motors Limited & others (RP No.4575 of 2012) and Tata Motors Limited  Vs. KrishanPal Singh & others (RP No.4787 of 2012)  2014(3) CLT.

12.               After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record including the case law, we are of considered opinion that it is admitted by the Ops that tractor of complainant was having some problem and its part(s) were replaced. Admittedly, the tractor is lying with the OP No.1 since 2015 and thus 8 years have already elapsed. Vide letters dated 29.03.2016 and 15.07.2016 (Annexure R1/B & R1/A), OP No.1 requested to take back the tractor and also to pay the financed amount of tractor. In this regard, during the course of arguments, complainant has placed on record NOC issued by OP No.3 which taken on record as Mark X shows the loan account with regard to the tractor of complainant has already closed.  The prayer of OP No.1 for issuance of direction to complainant to pay the parking charges w.e.f. 02.06.2016  to till date have already declined by the Commission vide order dated 01.05.2019.  We are impressed by the point raised by the complainant side that 30 minutes inspection time was not sufficient for calculating the defects in the tractor whereas it might take some more time or day(s) for the same.  In totality, from the above discussion, it emerges that the tractor was not running properly, therefore, the complainant had to visit repeatedly to OP No.1 for rectifying the problem(s) in the tractor  and because of this dispute the tractor is standing with OP No.1 for more than 8 years which must have caused monetary loss, mental pains and physical harassment to him.  The OP No.5 being manufacturer and OP No.1 being its dealer are hereby held liable to compensate the complainant for the hardship he had to suffer at the hands of OPs for such a long period and to set right the tractor in proper working condition in all respect. Accordingly, the complaint stands partly allowed and OPs No.1 and 5 are directed to comply with the following directions within 30 days from the date of order:-

1. OP No.1, to set right the tractor in question in a proper working condition in all respect without taking any charge from complainant.
2. OP No.5, to pay Rs.2,00,000/-  (Rs. Two lacs) to the complainant on account of harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay Rs.5500/- (Rs. Five thousand five thousand) as litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, OP No.5 shall liable to pay simple interest @ 9% per annum on all the aforesaid awarded amounts from the date of institution of this complaint till its realization. If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Certified copies of the order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.  

Announced.           

Dated: 29.01.2024