DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,GURGAON-122001.
Consumer Complaint No: 2 of 2014 Date of Institution: 30.12.2013/01.01.2014 Date of Decision: 16.10.2015.
Surat Singh s/o Sh. Shish Ram, R/o VPO Sultanpur, Tehsil Farrukh-Nagar, District Gurgaon.
……Complainant.
Versus
- Shree Hardeva Tractors (Authorized Agency of Sonalika Tractor Ltd), Kulana-Pataudi Road, Jatauli Haily Mandi, Tehsil Pataudi, District Gurgaon through its Proprietor.
- Sonalika International Tractors Ltd, Village Chak Gujran, P.O.Pipalanwala, Jalandhar (Punjab) through its Owner/Managing Director.
..Opposite parties
Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
BEFORE: SH.SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER
SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Sant Lal, Adv for the complainant.
Sh. R.N.Yadav, Adv for the opposite parties.
ORDER; SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he purchased a Sonalika Tractor manufactured by OP-2 from OP-1 vide Bill No.10 dated 04.06.2013 for a sum of Rs.4,70,000/- (Ann-B). Since the very inception the tractor started developing problems and contacted OP-1 but no step was taken by OP-1 though tractor was creating the problems continuously. Thereafter opposite party no.1 on 23.11.2013 referred the said tractor to M/s Khosla Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd, 2424/3, Old Delhi road, Near Ajit Cinema, Gurgaon and said M/s Khosla Agro disclosed that there was some mismatch of Injector with fuel pump and as such it was a case of wrong fitment of the equipments on the part of the manufacturer i.e. OP-2. Thereafter complainant requested the OP-2 to replace the said tractor as there was some manufacturing defect but in vain. Thus, the opposite parties are deficient in providing services to the complainant. He prayed that the opposite parties be directed to replace the tractor in question or in the alternate to refund the amount along with harassment and mental agony.
2 OP-1 in its written reply has alleged that tractor of the complainant was working perfectly and complainant got its regular service twice with the opposite party on 06.08.2013 and on 06.11.2013 and at that time the fuel injector was working properly. In the month of Nov, 2011 complainant reported that fuel pump of the tractor was not working properly and it was not taking the load as per specifications. After receiving the report from the opposite party, they were ready to change the fuel injector with the new fuel injector but the complainant demanded the replacement of the tractor which was denied as there was no major fault in the tractor other than the fuel injector which the opposite party was ready to change the same without charging anything.
3 However, OP-2 in its written reply has alleged that the tractor in question was purchased on 04.06.2013 and it was brought for routine service on 06.08.2013 when the tractor had run 62 hrs and customer took the tractor in satisfactory condition. Similarly, the tractor was again brought for routine service on 06.11.2013 and at that time the tractor had run 259 hours and the complainant took the tractor in satisfactory condition. The alleged smoke is the result of poor quality diesel and there is no question of such problem in the tractor as the tractors are sent to dealers after proper testing. The nozzle was fitted as per the service information specifications provided by Bosch Company in the year 2009. M/s Khosla Agro Industries Ltd which is merely a dealer has no authority to issue such opinions. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
4 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record available on file carefully.
5 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency of service on their part on the ground that complainant purchased a Sonalika Tractor manufactured by OP-2 from OP-1 vide Bill No.10 dated 04.06.2013 for a sum of Rs.4,70,000/- (Ann-B) and the said tractor started creating problem and when the complainant contacted OP-1 then no attention was paid despite the fact that the tractor was continuously creating problems and thereafter on 23.11.2013 OP-1 referred the said tractor to M/s Khosla Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd, Gurgaon and said M/s Khosla Agro had disclosed that there was some mismatch of injector with fuel pump and as such it was a case of wrong fitment of the equipments at the end of the manufacturer i.e. OP-2 and thereafter complainant approached OP-1 to replace the said tractor as there was some manufacturing defect but in vain. On the aforesaid allegations the complainant prayed for changing of the tractor on account of the manufacturing defect or in the alternative to get the amount refunded along with the harassment and litigation expenses.
Learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon Tata Engineering & Locomotive AIR 1997 SC 2774, Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd v Mahesh Sukhthankar 2004 (2) CPR 49 (NC) as well as P.K.Basher Vs M/s Lee System and Devices 2004 (1) CPR 56 (SCDRC)(Kerala)
6 However, as per the contention of the opposite parties there is absolutely no evidence on the file in order to come to the conclusion that there was manufacturing defect in the said tractor so as to make out the case of replacement of the tractor or refund of the price of the same. It was argued that the report of M/s Khosla Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd is of no avail in the present circumstances of the case because the said report has been procured by the complainant in the absence of the representative of the opposite parties and M/s Khosla Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd was not authorized service centre of the opposite party, the manufacturer.
It is also contended that when the complainant approached with the problem of fuel injector the same was replaced and as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and as such the complaint is without merit and liable to be dismissed in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Maaruti Udyog Ltd Vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and ano AIR 2006 SC 1586, Sushila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd Vs Dr. Birendra Narain Prasad and Ors decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 07.05.2010 MANU/CF/0076/2010, Surendra Kumar Jain Vs R.C.Bhargava and Ors III(2006) CPJ 382 (NC).
7 Therefore, after going through the evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case, it emerges that there is absolutely no evidence on the file in order to come to the conclusion that the tractor was having any manufacturing defect so much so there is no report in any form of the motor mechanic so as to come to the conclusion that there was manufacturing defect in the tractor. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Maruti Udyog Ltd Vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and Ano (supra) has laid down the law in order to come to the conclusion as to whether there was any manufacturing defect or not in order to make out a case of replacement of the vehicle. Since in the instant case there is absolutely no evidence on the file that the tractor was suffering from any manufacturing defect and as such we cannot order replacement of the said tractor.
8 However, from the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet out the ends of justice we are inclined to hold that there is problem in fuel injector and as such we direct the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 to replace the fuel injector free of cost so as to make the tractor in working condition to the extent of projected Horse Power within 30 days. The complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment and mental agony Rs.5,000/-. He is also entitled to litigation expenses of Rs.3100/-. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 shall make the compliance of the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.
Announced (Subhash Goyal)
16.10.2015 President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
(Jyoti Siwach) (Surender Singh Balyan)
Member Member
case for disposed off
