BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 239 of 2016.
Date of Institution : 16.9.2016
Date of Decision : 8.12.2016
Kuldeep Singh, aged about 35 years, son of Sh. Narain Chand, resident of village Mallekan, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Shivdei Enterprises, near Bus Stand, Hisar Road, Sirsa, through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Manager or authorized person.
- Eicher Tractor Limited, the manufacturer of the production in question, Gurgaon, Haryana.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL………..……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Inderjit Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties already exparte.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief, is that opposite party no.1 is the authorized dealer of op no.2. The complainant had purchased one new tractor make Eicher-380 bearing engine No.G54756, chassis No.923513141171 from opposite party no.1 for Rs.5,03,500/- on 28.10.2015. Some payment was made in cash and remaining payment was made to op no.1 through finance. The complainant was given two years full warrantee of the tractor in question. However, since the purchase of said tractor, he noticed that the tractor is consuming more mobile oil due to which the working of the engine is being adversely affected and it is causing damages to the engine of the tractor. The complainant told the said defect to the mechanics of op no.1 and they noticed the defect and tried to remove and some times the mechanics were sent at the address of complainant. They checked the tractor and drover the same six hours continuously and then told that they have removed the said defect. In fact, the tractor is having the above said defect till today and on 21.8.2016 the tractor stopped working. The complainant informed the op no.1 in this regard and the mechanic after checking the tractor on 22.8.2016 told that engine of the tractor is seized due to consuming excess mobile oil. The company was also informed in this regard on telephone by the Mechanic of the company. The above said defect could not be removed despite 5/6 times service by the dealer. The complainant is not in a position to use the tractor. The complainant has to pay interest on the loan amount and he has taken about 22 acres of agricultural land on lease basis and in this way he has suffered huge loss. Despite his several requests, the ops have totally refused to admit his claim and refused to replace the tractor with new one about a week ago. Hence, this complaint.
2. Opposite party no.1 did not appear after due service. OP no.2 also did not appear despite notice sent through registered post. As such, both the ops were proceeded against exparte.
3. In evidence, complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Sukhdev Kumar Mechanic Ex.CW2/A, copy of RC Ex.C3, copy of insurance Ex.C4 & Ex.C5, copy of lease deed Ex.C6, copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 Ex.C7 and copy of lease deed Ex.C8, copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 Ex.C9 and copy of warranty card Ex.C10.
4. The complainant is alleging defect in the engine of the tractor since very beginning of its purchase and according to him now engine is seized and tractor has stopped working. The complainant besides his affidavit in support of his allegations has tendered affidavit of Sukhdev Kumar, Mechanic of tractor engine who has testified that complainant got inspected his new tractor from him which was consuming mobile in excess and he advised the complainant that engine has to be replaced upon which complainant told that tractor is in guarantee period, so he advised him to take the tractor in the company. He has further stated that there is requirement of replacement of engine. There is no rebuttal to the contentions and evidence led by the complainant as ops have not bothered to appear before this Forum to contest the complaint rather opted to remain exparte. So, from the evidence led by complainant, it is proved on record that engine of the tractor is defective.
5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to make the tractor in question defect free and in proper working condition after repair with replacement of engine, if needed and replacement of other defective parts, if any free of costs. Both the opposite parties No.1 & 2 will jointly and severally comply this order within a period of 45 days after taking the same to them by the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:8.12.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
