Orissa

Cuttak

CC/132/2023

Susama Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

Solis Tractor Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S Swain & associates

19 Jan 2024

ORDER

 

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.132/2023

          Susama Behera @ Sitha,

W/o: Shesadev Sitha, At:Karabara,

P.O:Harirajpur,P.S:Banki,

Dist:Cuttack-754008.                                               ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.        Solis Tractor Pvt. Ltd.,

At:358, ISS Nagar,Hoshiarpur,146001,

                       Punjab,India.

 

2.        M/s. Young Engineering,Cuttack,

At: 1192/1678,Kamarpada,

                 Jashapada,Cuttack

Dist: Cuttack-754130.                                          ....Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    28.04.2023

Date of Order:  19.01.2024

 

For the complainant:           Mr. S.Swain,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P.No.1       :             Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.2:                                   None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                                                                               

Case of the complainant as made out from her complaint petition in short is that she had purchased a tractor of Rs.8,50,000/- by obtaining a loan of Rs.6,78,775/- from the O.Ps on 4.11.2020.  The vehicle was insured with Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Ltd. vide Policy no.3380/02096691/000/00 which was effective from 7.3.2022 to 6.3.2023.  The said tractor had warranty for 5000 hours or for 60 months.  The said tractor was found to be defective within the said warranty period for which the complainant had requested the O.Ps to repair or replace the same.  Since the said tractor could not be registered before the R.T.O,Cuttack, the complainant could not ply the same for which she had approached the O.Ps in order to register the said vehicle and deliver her the R.C.Book.  After several persuasions the complainant could manage to get the registration number of her tractor but could not get the registration certificate.  The said tractor had eight number of services and during the said period, the complainant had pointed out the defect in the hydraulic lifting system of her tractor and also about the engine defect. Those defects could not be rectified by the Service Engineers of the O.Ps.  That apart, the tyres those which were fitted to her tractor at the time of purchase were not feasible to run in mud surfaces for which the complainant had requested the O.Ps to replace those tyres with new tyres those which can run in the mud surfaces.  But when the O.Ps did not listen to the complainant, she had to purchase mud-worthy tyres by spending an amount of Rs.64,800/- in order to make her tractor. The complainant had purchased the tractor to earn her livelihood and had availed loan to that effect but she was unable to ply the tractor as because the O.Ps had failed to rectify the defects as pointed out by the complainant.  It is for the said reason she had to approach this Commission by filing a petition seeking direction from this Commission to the O.Ps in order to pay her a sum of Rs.64,800/- towards the cost of the tyres of her tractor which she herself had paid.  She has also prayed for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the O.Ps towards her financial loss and for another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for her mental agony and harassment and also further for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards her litigation expenses.  Besides those, the complainant has prayed for any other relief as deemed fit and proper.

          Together with her complaint petition, the complainant has filed several documents in order to prove her case.

2.       Initially the complainant had filed her petition against M/s. Solis Tractor Pvt. Ltd. making it as O.P no.1 and also against M/s. Young Engineering who was arrayed by her as O.P no.2.  But subsequently by virtue of her petition, the O.P no.2 was deleted from her petition vide order dated 30.12.2023.  Thus, only O.P no.1 has contested this case who has filed written version.

 According to the written version of the said O.P, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased a tractor on 4.11.2020 but the O.P company, who is the manufacturer, it does not sell any tractor or deal with any customer directly.  This O.P does not accept any consideration money directly from any customer.  The complainant had not hired for any services of this O.P.  The after-sale service is provided by the authorised dealer and thus the O.P of this case has no direct nexus with the complainant of this case.  The O.P through his written version has stated that it is the responsibility of the complainant to get her tractor registered with the concerned R.T.O.  According to the O.P, the registration if not done by the complainant it should have been done by the dealership concerned and in no case by the O.P who is the manufacturer.  The tyres while being sold were standard tyres fitted to the tractor and it is thus improper to allege that the tyres fitted to the tractor were unfit to run in mud surfaces.  Moreso, the complainant has not made it clear while purchasing the tractor as to on which surface, she was intending to ply her tractor.  Thus, according to the O.P, there was absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P for which it is prayed through the written version to dismiss the complaint petition as filed by the complainant.

          Together with the written version, the O.P has also filed copies of several documents in order to support his stand.

          The complainant has filed evidence affidavit in this case but the same when perused appears to be the reiteration of the contents of her complaint petition only.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her?

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no. ii being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

After going through the complaint petition, the written version, the written notes of submissions from either sides, the evidence affidavit as filed on behalf of the complainant and also after perusing all the copies of documents as available in the case record, it is noticed that admittedly Susama Behera @ Sitha,the complainant had purchased a tractor worth of Rs.8,50,000/- on 4.11.2020 by obtaining loan for the same.  According to the complainant, the O.P could not register her tractor for which she was unable to ply her tractor though she had purchased the same to earn her livelihood.  She has also alleged that the tyres fitted to her tractor were not mud-worthy for which she had to replace those tyres of her tractor by providing substitute and thus she had to spend a sum of Rs.64,800/- for the same.  As it appears from her complaint petition that she had incurred loan to the tune of Rs.6,78,775/- from Kotak Mahindra Bank so as to purchase her tractor.  Her allegation is that the O.P had not registered her tractor with the R.T.O office for which she was not able to ply her tractor and earn her livelihood through the said tractor.  Here in this case, the O.P is admittedly the manufacturer of the tractor which the complainant had purchased thus and it is not at all the duty of the manufacturer to get registered the sold tractor with the R.T.O concerned.  Thus, the onus lies upon the complainant to establish her contention as to in which way the manufacturer is liable to get her tractor registered as alleged here in this case.  As it seems here in this case, perhaps while obtaining loan from the Kotak Mahindra Bank, the complainant had entered into a loan agreement with the financier/bank and since the vehicle is hypothecated to the said financier/bank, the registration of the tractor though purchased by the complainant, the said financier/bank should have obtained the registration certificate.  Thus, the allegation in this regard as made by the complainant that the O.P had not registered her tractor does not hold good.

The allegation of the complainant that the tyres fitted to the tractor purchased by her, were not mud-worthy for which she had to spent a sum of Rs.64,800/- for replacing the tyres of her tractor.  While thinking of purchasing a tractor, the complainant should have thoroughly understood the pros and cons of the said tractor and being fully convinced she should have purchased the tractor.  Have it been her cause that she wanted to ply her tractor only on mud-surfaces, and she could have put forth her query in that regard to the seller, she could have got her doubt cleared prior to her purchase. After purchasing the tractor when she found it not to be mud-worthy, she had to replace the tyres by spending a sum of Rs.64,800/-.  Thus, the O.P who is a manufacturer can in no way be implicated here in this case responsible for it and to be deficient in his service as because there is no evidence led from the side of the complainant to apprise this Commission that infact the complainant had asked for a tractor which is absolutely mud-worthy or a tractor having mud-worthy tyres and by not providing her the same, the O.P is at fault.  Thus, this Commission comes to an irresistible conclusion that there was no deficiency in service as alleged against the O.P here in this case.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the O.P in this case.

Issues no. I & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by her.

                                              ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.P and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 19^th day of January,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                  Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                              President

 

                                                                                       Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                 Member