BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 59 of 2014.
Date of Institution : 8.5.2014
Date of Decision : 5.9.2016
Veer Singh, aged about 35 years son of Shri Ram Narayan, resident of village and Post Office Neza Dela Khurd, Tehsil and District Sirsa (Haryana).
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Shree Tractors, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, through its Proprietor.
- International Tractors Limited (Sonalika), Jallandhar Road, City Hoshiarpur Industries, Auto Mobiles, through its Managing Director.
...…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. K.S. Chahal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Purshotam Phutela, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant purchased one Tractor make Sonalika model DI750IIIDC bearing chassis No.J22DV36774153 and engine No.4100DL334367108FI from op no.1 vide bill No.2690 dated 4.10.2013 against cash payment of Rs.5.80 lacs. The cash memo form No.15, form No.21 and other relevant papers duly signed by op no.1 were also handed over to the complainant. At that time, it was assured by op no.1 that above said tractor will remain under guarantee of the company for a period of one year from its purchase regarding its manufacturing defects and other mechanical defects in all respects. The op no.1 is authorized dealer of op no.2. That after few days when the tractor was being plied in the fields in order to cultivate the land, within a few minutes the complainant noticed that the tractor is not pulling the equipment attached with the tractor with its full power, rather the tractor became slow and could not ply properly as per its required standards. Thereafter, the complainant rushed to op no.1 and narrated him the above said defect in the tractor and upon the complaint, two mechanics were sent in the fields in order to check the actual problem of the tractor but they could not find any defect in accurate manner rather they had admitted the defects of improper pulling of the tractor and assured that defects will be removed by the engineers of the company. It is further averred that even after lapse of more than two weeks, the ops have not taken any serious effects. The act of the ops tentamounts to unfair trade practice and cheating. The complainant has already paid huge amount against the price of the tractor but he is not in position to use the said tractor for cultivation purposes and thus, has suffered financial loss and mental agony even has suffered loss of one crop. The complainant approached and requested the ops time and again to remove the defects of the above said tractor but all in vain and the ops are not ready to remove the defects without any fault on the part of complainant. The complainant is entitled to replacement of the tractor with new one or to refund of the costs of the tractor alongwith interest and is also entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the compolaint by filing joint written statement. It is submitted that complainant has no where stated or proved with any documentary proof that there had been any manufacturing defect in the tractor as the complainant has not annexed any report of the authorized mechanic with regard to the manufacturing defect in the tractor. Moreover, in case there had been any manufacturing defect in the tractor, the complainant must have approached the authorized service centre of the company/ op no.1 or to convey about the defect to the company but complainant has failed to do so. The complainant did not lodge any complaint with regard to the defect in the tractor with the replying ops, as such there is no question of any negligence/ deficiency in discharge of duties. It is incorrect that tractor started making trouble in a few days of purchase. The tractors are manufactured by op no.2 with latest techniques and quality control system of ISO 9001 & 14001. After proper testing and quality check, the tractors are sent to dealers for further sale. The tractor with specific power need to be attached with compatible equipment. The complainant has intentionally concealed the material facts from this Forum. The possibility cannot be ruled out that complainant has misused the powers of the tractor by making attachment of the equipment agriculture instrument, which was not compatible and authorized to be attached with the tractor, hence the possibility cannot be ruled out that the tractor suffered the alleged damages on account of the misuse and negligence on the of the part of complainant himself. The warranty of the tractor is 18 months or 1500 hours whichever is earlier. Remaining contents of the complaint have been denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on file his affidavit Ex.C1, report of Kissan Tractor Workshop as Ex.C2, legal notice Ex.C3, copy of temporary certificate of registration Ex.C4, copy of sale certificate Ex.C5, copy of cash memo Ex.C6 and Ex.C7, copy of registration certificate Ex.C8. On the other hand, opposite parties have placed on file affidavit Ex.R1.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
5. There is no dispute that the complainant had purchased the tractor in question from opposite party no.1 on 4.10.2013 for a sum of Rs.5,80,000/- vide bill No.2690, copy of which has also been placed on file as Ex.C6. The above said tractor is manufactured by opposite party no.2. The complainant has alleged defect in the tractor in question and in this regard has also placed on file a report of mechanic namely Bhajan Lal of Kissan Tractor Workshop as Ex.C2 which mentions that he checked the capacity of pulling load of the tractor but the tractor could not properly pull the load. The opposite parties have denied to have received any kind of complaint in this regard from the complainant. However, as the complainant is alleging defect in the tractor during warranty period, the opposite parties are directed to inspect the tractor in question and to remove defect, if any from the tractor within one month of production of tractor by the complainant in the authorized workshop of the opposite parties. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rs. Three thousand) in lump sum as litigation expenses etc. to the complainant. The present complaint stands disposed of accordingly. 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:5.9.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
