Haryana

StateCommission

A/250/2016

INTERNATIONAL TRACTOR LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAM DIYA - Opp.Party(s)

RECEIVED FROM NCDRC,NEW DELHI

08 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Remand Appeal No: 250 of 2016

First Appeal No  :      481 of 2011

Date of Institution:      06.04.2011

Date of Decision :       08.08.2016

 

M/s International Tractors Limited, Sonalika House, Village Chak Gujran, P.O. Piplian-wala-146022, Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur (Punjab) India, through Shri Malkiat Singh, Chief Factory Manager-cum-Assistant General Manager.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.3

Versus

 

1.      Ram Diya s/o Sh. Piyare Lal, Resident of Village Rai, Tehsil and District Sonipat.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      M/s Satguru Tractors, Near Om Dharam Kanta, Sonipat Road, Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, through its Manager.

3.      M/s Sonipat Tractors, Near Chhotu Ram Chowk, Gohana Road, Sonipat, through its Manager.

Respondents-Opposite Parties No.1 & 2

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Suvir Sehgal, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Sourabh Goel, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                             Respondents No.2 & 3 –Performa.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          M/s International Tractors Limited-Opposite Party No.3, has challenged the order dated February 7^th, 2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.356 of 2008.

2.                Initially on September 26^th, 2012, the matter was settled between the parties; statements of learned counsel for the parties were recorded and the appeal was disposed of in terms of the statements.

3.                The complainant challenged the order dated     September 26^th, 2012 passed by this Commission, before Hon’ble National Commission, stating that he did not authorise his counsel to make such statement.

4.                Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated March 4^th, 2016 set aside the order and remitted the case for fresh decision on merits.

5.                Ram Diya-complainant/respondent No.1, filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, stating that he purchased a tractor, Sonalika DL-60 PS, bearing Engine No.4100FL721126942, Chassis No.DZBDY126038/3, vide Invoice dated October 5^th, 2007, for Rs.4,47,000/-. The tractor was found defective from the very beginning as the fuel pump and the lift were not working properly. The complainant approached M/s Sonipat Tractors-Opposite Party No.2, the authorised dealer of Sonalika International Tractors Limited-Opposite Party No.3. On the advice of Opposite Party No.2, the complainant took the tractor to M/s Haryana Diesel, Sonipat, who charged Rs.3452/- to remove the defect despite the tractor being within warranty. The tractor still having problem, was taken to Opposite Party No.2 on September 22^nd, 2008.the engineers of the opposite party No.3-appellant, after checking vide report dated 22.09.2008, opined that some parts were having manufacturing defects and need to be replaced. The complainant approached the opposite parties for replacement of tractor. Nothing being done, the complainant filed complaint.

6.                Notice being issued, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 contested the complaint. Opposite Party No.2 in its written version admitted that after checking the tractor, there was some problem in the fuel pump and the engineer of the opposite party No.3 recommended for replacement of the defective parts. Rest of the allegations were denied.

7.                The opposite party No.3 raised plea that it had deputed its engineer to check the tractor and no manufacturing defect was found.

8.                District Forum, after hearing the parties allowed the complaint vide order dated February 7^th, 2011. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“………the respondent No.3 being the manufacturer of the tractor is hereby directed to replace the tractor of the complainant with new one of the same Model, same company and same capacity. It is also directed to the complainant to hand over the tractor bearing Engine No.4100FL721126942 and Chassis No.DZBDY 126038 to the respondent No.3. It is also directed to the respondent No.3 to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/- (Rs.two thousands) for rendering deficient services, for causing mental agony & harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed and the respondent No.3 is directed to make the compliance of this order within one month from the date of pronouncement of this order.”

9.                Both the parties relied upon the reports, dated 22.09.2008 of Opposite Party No.2 and 04.01.2011 of Works Manager, Haryana Roadways, Sonipat. It would be relevant to mention, at this stage, that during the pendency of complaint, learned District Forum vide its order dated 20.12.2010, had directed the Workshop Manager, Haryana Roadways, Sonipat, to inspect/check the tractor and submit report. Both the reports are consistent regarding the problem of steering pump and Hydraulic system. In the report dated 22.09.2008, the engineer has pointed out problem in steering pump and Hydraulic pump and to the same effect is the report dated 04.01.2011 of Works Manager, Haryana Roadways, Sonipat, who has also pointed out the problem with the steering pump and the Hydraulic system.

10.              Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-complainant has referred to the grounds of appeal where the opposite party No.3-appellant had agreed to replace these parts. Thus, an inference is being drawn that the opposite party No.3-appellant agreeing to replace the parts, the entire tractor needs to be replaced.  This Commission does not agree with this argument. Merely because there is problem in one part, that is, steering pump and Hydraulic system, which can be repaired/replaced and opposite party No.3-appellant has candidly agreed to replace these parts free of costs, no case for replacement of tractor is made out. Support to this view can be had from the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maruti Udyog Limited Versus Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and another (2006) 4 SCC 644, wherein it was held that the legal liability of the manufacturer in respect of any defective/damaged component/part of the motor vehicle is limited only to replacement of that defective component/part.  The manufacturer cannot not be held liable to replace the entire vehicle.

11.              In view of the above, the manufacturer-Opposite Party No.3/appellant, is directed to replace the defective parts of the tractor free of costs. The complainant shall take his tractor to the workshop of the authorised dealer of the appellant-opposite party No.3, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the dealer shall replace the parts which were found to be defective in both the reports. The replacement of the defective parts and putting the tractor in running condition shall be certified by an engineer of the appellant. The tractor be returned to the complainant within 30 days after repairs.  The District Forum has allowed compensation of Rs.2,000/-, which is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-.

12.              The impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of.

 

 

Announced 08.08.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL