Complaint filed on: 10.08.2015

                                                                                                                             Complaint Disposed on:05.05.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.

COMPLAINT NO.110/2015

DATED THIS THE 5^th DAY OF MAY 2017

:PRESENT:

HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT

HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER

HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER

COMPLAINANT:

Smt.Puttamma W/o Erabasappa,

Major, Agriculturist, R/o Gadihalli

Village & post, Tarikere Taluk,

Chikmagalur District.

(By Sri/Smt. G.E.Ninge Gowda, Advocate)

V/s

OPPONENT:

1. Sri.Srinivasa Tractors & Farm

Equipments, Nagarjuna Arcade,

B.H.Road, Kadur-577548.

2. Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd.,

A member of Amalgamations group,

Chennai-600034.

3. M/s. Raheja Chambers, Museum

Road, First Floor, Tafe Ltd., Bangalore.

(OP No.1 By Sri/Smt. D.L.Ramanuja Char, Advocate)

(OP No.2 By Sri/Smt. Rukmini D., Advocate)

(OP No.3 - Exparte)

By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,

:O R D E R:

The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP Nos. 1 to 3 alleging unfair trade practice in selling the defective tractor to the complainant. Hence, prays for direction against Op Nos.1 to 3 to replace the said defective tractor with a new one and also prays for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for unfair trade practice.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint is that:

        The complainant for his agricultural purpose and bonafide use has purchased one tractor MASSEY FERGUSON TRACTOR 9500 on 21.11.2013 with a financial assistance from Mahindra Finance. After purchase of the said tractor within a short period complainant noticed the problem in the engine, battery and also found wear and tear of tyres. During first service of the tractor the battery was replaced and 1^st Op had kept the tractor for 27 days in their custody for repairs towards defect found in the tractor and delivered the tractor only after the payment made by complainant. At the time of delivery of the tractor the Op no.1 had not given hook and weight of the tractor to the complainant. Even after the first service the complainant noticed the same problems in the engine and the engine was not ploughing the land properly and it is also emitting huge pollution and sound. Further the battery which was replaced also not functioning properly. Due to the said defects in the tractor complainant was not able to plough her agricultural land. Again she took the vehicle to the Op no.1 for repairs, the problem noticed in the tractor was not rectified by the Ops so far. The complainant due to the said problems in the tractor was not able to repay the loan installments to the financier. Now the tractor is not at all useful for any agricultural work and complainant have suffered financial loss and inconvenience. In this regard the complainant has requested the Op to either rectify the problem or to replace the defective tractor with new one, but Ops stood reluctant. Finally complainant issued a legal notice dated 26.02.2015 and called upon the Ops to replace the tractor with a new one and also to pay compensation for unfair trade practice. Even inspite of legal notice also Ops have not complied the demand made by complainant.

        Hence, Op Nos.1 to 3 rendered unfair trade practice in selling defective tractor to the complainant and prays for directions against Op Nos.1 to 3 to replace the defective tractor with a new one along with compensation for unfair trade practice as prayed above in the interest of justice and equity.

3. After service of notice Op No.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed version. Op No.3 placed exparte.  

4. Op no.1 in his version has contended that this Op was a dealer of Op no.2 and 3 at the time of purchase of the tractor by complainant. Now this Op had surrendered the dealership on 15.05.2014 and same was accepted by the manufacturer on 06.06.2014. Hence, the complaint against this Op is not maintainable and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

        Op no.1 further contended that on 21.11.2013 the complainant had purchased Massey Ferguson Tractor from this Op by availing a loan from Mahindra Finance. But it is not true that the tractor has a manufacturing defect and started giving problems after the short period of the purchase of the tractor. On 03.01.2014 the tractor was produced by complainant for first service by son of the complainant and at the time of first service the tractor was plied up to 90 hours, at the time of first service the complainant had not brought any complaints/defects in the tractor to the notice of this Op. As usual the first service was provided by replacing the engine oil in the tractor and delivered to the complainant. After the first service the complainant took the tractor in good running condition and signed the job card in this regard. But they have not replaced the battery as alleged in the complaint.

        Further on 17.02.2014 the tractor was brought for second service and this Op noticed that the tractor was plied up to 330 hours and even at the time of second service also complainant has not complained with respect to the tractor condition and as usual the second service was provided by replacing the engine oil and even this Op had taken the trial run of the tractor and noticed that there is no any defect in the tractor. After that the tractor was delivered to the complainant and complainant signed the job card.

        Further on 09.05.2014 the son of the complainant brought the tractor and complained there is some problem in the clutches, after checkup it was noticed that the clutch facing was completely worn out on the account of not properly applying the clutches by the driver, who driven the vehicle. The same was brought to the notice of the complainant son about the bad handling of the tractor by the driver. This Op also replaced the clutch plate and after repair the tractor was delivered to the complainant on 12.05.2014, at the time of delivery of the tractor it was in good running condition, after taking the delivery the complainant has not visited this Op or brought the tractor for any further repairs. Meantime this Op has surrendered the dealership to the company and he has not running any service station in this regard.

        This Op is not liable to pay any compensation or liable to replace the tractor as alleged in the complaint. There is no cause of action arose against this Op. Hence, prays for dismissal of complaint.

5. Op no.2 also filed version and contended that the complainant has purchased the tractor on 21.11.2013, whereas the complainant filed this complaint on 10.08.2015 that after lapse of 2½ years by alleging manufacturing defect in the tractor. The complainant had used the tractor to his full satisfaction. The person who is driving the tractor is not qualified and authorized to drive the same, the tractor purchased by complainant is for agricultural purpose and only for ploughing purpose and not for any other purposes. Whereas in the above case the tractor in question has been used for other purposes also. Further it was made to run in the road which is not allowed as it is an agricultural tractor to be plied in agricultural field. Hence, this Op denies the wear and tear of the tyres. There is no manufacturing defect found in the tractor and the allegations made by complainant are not true. The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and filed this false complaint in order to gain wrongfully. There is no cause of action arose against this Op and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

6. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to P.10. Op 1 & 2 also filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.R.1 to R.3.

7.     Heard the arguments.

8.     In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
2. Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?

9.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

1. Point No.1: Negative.  
2. Point No.2: As per Order below. 

: R E A S O N S :

POINT NOs. 1 & 2:

10. On going through the pleadings, affidavits and documents produced by both complainant and Op No.1 & 2 there is no dispute that complainant has purchased Massey Ferguson Tractor from Op no.1 on 21.11.2013, but alleges that she faced some problems after purchase of the tractor she noticed there is a huge sound and emitting huge pollution in the engine and also noticed the battery was not working properly, even the tyres of the tractors were became wear and tear for short distance and requested the Op no.1 to 3 to replace the tractor with new one, for which Op Nos.1 to 3 not replaced the tractor. Hence, alleges unfair trade practice and prays for direction against Op Nos.1 to 3 to replace the said tractor with new one and also prays for compensation for unfair trade practice as prayed above.

11. On contrary Op no.1 has taken a contention that after purchase of the tractor the complainant brought the tractor for first service on 03.01.2014, at the time of first service it was plied up to 90 hours, even at the time of delivering the vehicle for service complainant has not complained with respect to the condition of the tractor, as usual 1^st Op had changed the engine oil and provided the service and delivered to the complainant, even complainant also took the vehicle with full satisfaction. There afterwards on 17.02.2014 second service also provided to the vehicle, even at the time of second service also complainant’s son not given any complaint with respect to the condition of the vehicle and they have replaced the engine oil and provided the service to the tractor and delivered the same to the complainant in a good running condition. Even at the time of second service also complainant had satisfied with the service provided by Op no.1. Further only on 09.05.2014 the son of the complainant brought the vehicle with a problem in the clutches, for which 1^st Op had repaired by replacing the clutches and instructed the driver to apply clutches properly for the purpose of long use and good maintenance. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 12.05.2014. There afterwards complainant has not approached this Op with respect to the tractor. Subsequently, Op also closed his dealership with a manufacturer and submits no unfair trade practice on their part and prays for dismissal of the complaint. The same contention was also taken by Op no.2. Op no.1 had produced three job cards marked as Ex.R.1, R.2 and R.3. On going through the said job cards we noticed that complainant had not given any complaint with respect to the manufacturing defect of the tractor, even he is not given any complaint with respect to the engine and any emitting of sound and pollution as alleged in the complaint. As per the Ex.R.1 the Op no.1 has replaced the engine oil, replacement of filter and checked the staring operations, Radiator cool system, etc., and provided a service it is also noticed that they have charged Rs.3,620/- from complainant for the purpose of replacement of the engine oil and filter. Apart from that Op no.1 had not collected any amount from the complainant. There afterwards even in the second service as per the Ex.R.2 the engine oil was replaced with replacement of the oil filter, check up the hydraulic oil level, coolest system checked and service was provided. The complainant also not given any complaints with respect to the engine of the tractor in the said job card again Rs.3,620/- charged for replacement of the engine oil and filter, but at the time of their service as per Ex.R.3 we noticed that the clutch plate was replaced and clutch spring also replaced. The observations made by Op no.1 as per the job card (Ex.R.3) is clutch plate worn out, the same was rectified by replacing the clutch plate and spring and delivered to the complainant after repair. On these services the complainant has not made any complaint to Op no.1 with respect to the performance of the tractor whereas in his complaint and affidavit complainant as alleged there is a problem in the engine soon after purchase of the tractor, but that is not reflected in the job card. Hence, we found the complainant has satisfactorily utilized the tractor by running up to 408 hours after purchase of the tractor. As contended by Op no.2, the vehicle was purchased by complainant in the year 2013, whereas complainant filed this complaint alleging manufacturing defect in the year 2015 after lapse of nearly 2½ years. We are of the opinion that complainant not established that the tractor sold by Op no.1 to 3 has a manufacturing defect he has not produced any materials/documents to show the tractor is not in a good condition. Hence, the allegations made by complainant are not justifiable. We found there is no any unfair trade practice on the part of Op no.1 to 3 in selling tractor to the complainant and complainant is not entitled to get any relief as claimed in the complaint. As such the complaint is liable to be dismissed and for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:-  

: O R D E R :

1. The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.
2. Send free copies of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 5^th day of May 2017).

                                 (RAVISHANKAR)

                                      President

(B.U.GEETHA)                                         (H. MANJULA) 

     Member                                                    Member   

ANNEXURES

Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:

Ex.P.1              - Office copy of the legal notice.

Ex.P.2  to 4      - 3 acknowledgment due.

Ex.P.5              - Reply to the legal notice on behalf of Op no.1.

Ex.P.6              - Copy of the quotation for Rs.7,64,900/-.

Ex.P.7              - Owner’s service manual.

Ex.P.8              - Copy of the installation certificate.

Ex.P.9              - Copy of the R.C. of the complainant.

Ex.P.10            - GPA issued by the complainant

Documents produced on behalf of the OPs:

Ex.R.1  to 3      - 3 job cards dtd:03.01.2014, 17.02.2014 & 09.05.2014.

Dated:05.05.2017                         President 

                                     District Consumer Forum,

                                                  Chikmagalur.            

RMA