| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/15/102 of 18.5.2015 Decided on: 19.11.2015 Avtar Singh son of Sh.Babu Singh, resident of Village Chaswal, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus Satguru Motors Authorized Dealer Mahindra & Mahindra, Cheeka Road, Samana, District Patiala. …………….Op Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.D.R.Arora, President Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member Present: For the complainant: Sh.Pankaj Verma , Advocate For Op : Sh.Rohit Sharma,Adv.proxy counsel for Sh.Gagandeep Singh Sidhu,Advocate ORDER D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT - It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased the tractor make Arjun model 605 bearing engine No.NSPB00004 from the Op on 7.8.2013. The Op provided a warranty of two years regarding the parts of the tractor. The tractor started giving the problems in gear shifting, starting problem etc and the complainant discussed the matter with the Op.It was stated that since the tractor was new and that with the passage of time the problems will be resolved automatically and further assured that in case any problem occurred in future, they will set the same right.
- However, the complainant faced the same very problems in the starting of the tractor as also in gear shifting and in the month of February,2014 the complainant visited the Op and apprised about the said problems, who referred the matter to their sub agency at Nabha. The mechanic after checking the tractor stated that some parts will be changed and that only old parts will be installed in the tractor and the same were changed accordingly. After changing of the parts , it was assured by the Op that there will not be any problem in the tractor. The Op got the job card signed by the complainant but kept the same with it saying that the same was required for the official record. The complainant requested the Op to provide the attested copy of the job card within a week but it failed to provide the same.
- It is further averred that Gurjit Singh son of the complainant got the complaint registered vide No.IBPB25031407542.Gurji t Singh made the complaints further on 25.3.2014,31.3.2014 and 14.4.2014 and 20.5.2014 but nothing was done to resolve the problems. One representative of the Op namely Ashish Rana had met the son of the complainant who also told that there was a manufacturing defect in the tractor and therefore, the problem will not be redressed.Again the problem having not been redressed the complainant faced the same problem in December,2014 but the same was not redressed by the Op.
- As a result of the aforesaid problems suffered by the complainant in the working of the tractor, he suffered a huge loss in the peak season and he was forced to hire labourer for agricultural work and paid the heavy amount. The complainant got the Op served with a legal notice dated 15.4.2015 but no reply to the same was given by the Op which resulted into the harassment and the mental agony experienced by the complainant on account of the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Accordingly the complainant brought this complaint against the Op under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Op to replace the tractor or to refund the price thereof with interest @18% per annum ; to pay him Rs.two lacs by way of compensation on account of the loss and further to award him Rs.22,000/- on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by him.
- On notice, the Op appeared and filed the written version having raised certain preliminary objections, interalia that the complaint is bad for non joinder of Mahindra & Mahindra company which is a necessary party. As regards the facts of the case, it is admitted by the Op tha the complainant had purchased the tractor from it on 29.6.2013 and not on 7.8.2013 .At the time of sale, the complainant was disclosed the procedure regarding the manner of use and for the maintenance. It is denied that after the purchase of the tractor, the same started giving the problems in starting the tractor, gear shifting etc. and that when he discussed the issue with the Op, he was assured that the same will be resolved automatically with the passage of time. The complainant has not disclosed the date, month and the year when he had visited the Op. There does not come any problem in the new tractor in the matter of staring it and in gear shifting. It is further denied that the complainant faced the said problems in the month of February,2014 and he had again visited the Op and who referred the matter to their sub agency at Nabha and where the mechanic after having checked the tractor told that some parts will be changed and that only old parts will be installed. A false story has been concocted by the complainant.
- It is denied by the Op that after the changing of the parts, it was assured by the Op that the tractor will not give any problem or that the Op got the job card signed by the complainant and they kept the job card with it. It is also denied that the complainant had asked for the attested copy of the job card and the same was not given to him. It is also denied that the representative of the Op namely Ashish Rana had met the son of the complainant, who disclosed that there was manufacturing defect in the said tractor and that the problem will not be redressed.
- It is denied that the said problems of tractor were not redressed by the Op and the complainant again faced the same in December,2014. In fact the complainant had reported the Op on 22.12.2014 with the starting problem and gear problem for the first time. The problems were duly checked and five components were changed on 23.12.2014 which were noted on the back of the job card. The parts were obtained from International Tractors and Automobiles Phillaur on 23.12.2014 itself. The complainant took the delivery of the tractor after having taken a trial and after certifying that the work had been done to his satisfaction. Thereafter the complainant had not reported any problem and the complaint brought by him is false and frivolous .There is no manufacturing defect in the tractor as alleged. There was no deficiency of service on the part of the Op. No ground is made out for the replacement of the tractor. Ultimately, after denouncing the other allegations of the complaint, going against the Op, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit alongwith the documents Exs.C1 to C2 and his counsel closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, the Op despite having availed of four opportunities failed to lead evidence and accordingly the evidence of the Op was closed by the order of the Forum.
- The parties failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, learned proxy counsel for the counsel for the Op and gone through the evidence on record.
- The Op has not denied the plea taken up by the complainant that the Op had provided a warranty of two years in respect of the parts of the tractor. It is the plea taken up by the Op that as a matter of fact, the complainant had reported the Op on 22.12.2014 with the starting problem and the gear problem for the first time and the said problem was duly checked and that five components were changed on 23.12.2014 which were obtained from International Tractors and Automobiles Phillaur on 23.12.2014 itself. The said parts were noted on the back of the job card. The complainant had got the delivery of the tractor after taking a trial of the tractor and after certifying that work had been done to his satisfaction. However, the Op has not lead any evidence in this regard by way of producing the affidavit of the concerned mechanic as also the job card to have been prepared in this regard, in the absence of which there is no reason to accept the plea of the Op. However, it may be noted that the learned proxy counsel stated at bar that the Op is still ready to repair the tractor of the complainant qua the problems highlighted by him to his satisfaction.
- We do not find any reason to disbelieve the plea taken up by the complainant that he had faced the problem in the starting of the tractor as also the gear shifting of the tractor and that his remedy was not redressed by the Op. No evidence has been lead by the complainant that he suffered any loss because of the tractor having not been repaired by the Op but we can well imagine the harassment and the mental agony to have been experienced by the complainant on account of the deficiency of service on the part of the Op. Consequently we accept the complaint and direct the Op to rectify the defect regarding the starting problem as also the problem in the gear shifting of the tractor by preparing a job card within 10 days from the date of the complainant bringing the tractor to the Op by way of obtained a note of satisfaction on the job card. We also award the complainant with a compensation in a sum of Rs.15000/- which is inclusive of the costs of the complaint. The Op shall make the payment of the compensation within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order.
Pronounced Dated: 19.11.2015 Sonia Bansal Neelam Gupta D.R.Arora Member Member President | |
