Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/285/2015

K.V. Velmurugan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Swami Tractors, - Opp.Party(s)

J. Ranjani Devi

11 Jan 2022

ORDER

0IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH                     :     PRESIDENT

                 Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI                          :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 285 of 2015

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.11/2010 dated 21.07.2015 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F. Villupuram.

 

Tuesday, the 11^th day of January 2022

 

K. Velmurugan

S/o Kaliyapadayatchi

Senkurichi & Post

Villupuram District

Pincode – 606 115.                                       .. Appellant/ Complainant

 

- Vs –

1.  The Administrator

     Swamy Tractors

     4/403, Trichi Highways

     Villupuram – 605 602.

 

2.  The Managing Director

     Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.,

     Farm Equipment Sector

     Akruli Road,Kandavali (East)

     Mumbai – 400 100.                                   .. Respondents/ Opposite Parties   

   

    Counsel for Appellant / Complainant                : M/s. J. Ranjani Devi

    Counsel for the Respondents/Opposite Parties  : No representation

                                                                            

This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 11.01.2022 and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant/ complainant and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT

1.        Not being satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Villupuram, made in C.C. No.11 of 2010 dated 21.07.2015, the present appeal has been filed by the Appellant / Complainant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

2.    The factual background culminating this appeal is as follows:  The case of the Complainant is that he is an Agriculturist and owns 5 acres of land.  In order to carry out agricultural operations, he had purchased a Tractor from the second opposite party on 04.02.2010, by paying a sum of Rs.5,38,000/- vide Demand Draft and Rs.17,000/- by way of cash.  The vehicle was delivered to the complainant, without registering with the concerned registration authority. The opposite party took one month time for registration.  Whileso, on 24.02.2010, when the tractor was in use, there was a sudden emission of smoke from the tractor.  Immediately, the complainant informed the same to the opposite party through telephone.  They had asked him to bring the tractor by towing and so the complainant left the tractor on 26.02.2010 in the premises of the first opposite party.  On 08.03.2010, the opposite party sent a letter seeking permission of the complainant to dismantle all the parts of the engine to find out the exact defect.  The complainant agreed for the same. Accordingly, the engine parts were dismantled by the opposite parties. Thereafter, there was no response from the opposite parties.  Therefore, the complainant incurred heavy loss.  Hence, he has come forward with the present complaint, seeking for a direction to the opposite parties,

1. to refund the entire price of the tractor namely, Rs.5,55,000/- with interest;
2. to pay Rs.2,66,300/- for spares with 12% interest;
3. to pay Rs.2,000/- towards loss of income per day;
4. to pay Rs,50,000/- for mental agony; and
5. to pay Rs.5000/- towards the cost of litigation.

 

3.  The said complaint was resisted by the opposite parties by filing counter.  In which it has been stated that the complainant was asked not to use the Tractor till they register the vehicle.  The complainant also agreed for the same, while taking delivery.  But contrary to the assurance, he had used the vehicle even before the registration. The complainant was using the tractor with a driver, who had no experience to drive the tractor.  That is the reason why the engine of the tractor developed a problem.  However, the first opposite party agreed to change the engine but the complainant did not agree for the same.  He is insisting to deliver a new tractor.  Absolutely, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and thus they sought for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.  The second opposite party, Manufacturer of the Tractor has filed a counter stating that the complainant purchased a red colour Tractor, Model No. EVWOL 800 Model 575 BP on 04.02.2010 from the fist opposite party, who is the authorised dealer of the second opposite party.  While the first opposite party is an authorised dealer for sale of tractors manufactured by the second opposite party, the relationship between both the parties is one of principal to principal basis and as a dealer the first opposite party is neither an agent nor does it have any fiduciary relationship with the second opposite party.  Before purchasing the said vehicle, the complainant had gone for a test drive and after being satisfied with the condition of the said vehicle, the complainant had purchased the tractor.  The complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle only after executing a letter stating that he is taking the vehicle at his own risk, since the said vehicle has not been registered.  On receipt of the complaint from the complainant on 24.02.2010, that white fumes were coming out from the engine, the first opposite party immediately attended the fault through its chief mechanic in order to rectify the defects as pointed out by the complainant.  On inspection, the chief mechanic advised the complainant not to use the vehicle further and requested him to bring the vehicle to the premises of the first opposite party. It was also informed to the complainant that the defective parts will be replaced.  But, the complainant refused for replacement of defective spare parts and demanded for replacement of the entire engine.  However, the first opposite party sent a mail to the second opposite party on 17.02.2010, with a request to replace a new engine.  The said request was approved and a mail was forwarded to the first opposite party on 23.04.2010 permitting for replacement of the entire engine.  But the complainant refused for replacement of the entire engine and demanded for a new tractor.  As per the warranty given to the complainant, if there is any defect, those spare parts will be replaced free of cost by the authorised dealer.   No assurance has been given to the complainant for replacement of the tractor.  Further, the complainant has attached a lot of extra fittings in the tractor and lot of welding works have been also been done, thereby the entire originality has been changed.  The vehicle was not operated by an experienced person and that is the reason why the alleged fault that had taken place.  But, concealing all these facts, he has filed the present complaint.  There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence, they sought for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.  In order to prove the case, the complainant has filed proof affidavit and 15 documents, which were marked as Exhibits A1 to A15.  On the side of the first opposite party, along with proof affidavit 6 documents were filed and marked as Ex.B1 and Ex.B6. 

 

6.  The District Forum, on analyzing the entire records, has come to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and thus directed the opposite parties to replace the engine within one month’s time and pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation towards mental agony.  Not being satisfied with the same, the complainant has filed this appeal.

 

7.  Heard the submission of the counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on records. No representation for the opposite parties. 

 

8.   The main contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the defects in the engine had occurred during the warranty period.  Therefore, the respondents/ opposite parties are liable to refund the entire cost of the tractor but the Tribunal instead of directing so, has directed them to replace the engine alone and pay only Rs.50,000/- as compensation.  Therefore, the counsel for the appellant prays for a direction to the opposite parties to pay the entire cost of Rs.5,50,000/-. 

 

9.  On perusal of the records, we find that the opposite parties have agreed to change the engine as early as, in the year 2010. It is the complainant who has not agreed for the same and was insisting to provide with a new tractor.  When the opposite party had undertaken to replace the defective engine with a new engine, we do not find any justification in the request made by the complainant.  Therefore, the question of refunding the entire price of the tractor, does not arise.  However, considering the fact that the defect had developed in the engine within a few days from the date of purchase, the sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation appears to be on the lower side.  Moreover, the opposite parties also has not filed any appeal and so the finding that there is a defect in the service of the opposite parties had already become final.  Considering the extent of mental agony that would have been undergone by the complainant, who had purchased a new tractor with the belief that he could use the said tractor for a long period to carry on his agricultural work, the compensation awarded by the District Forum is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-.   Except this modification, in all other aspects, the order of the District Forum is confirmed.  Accordingly, this appeal is in part.

 

10.   In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed, by enhancing the amount of compensation awarded towards mental agony, from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-.  Except this enhancement, the order dated 21.07.2015 passed in C.C. No.11 of 2010 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Villupuram, is confirmed in all other aspects. 

 

 

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                                                           R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                          PRESIDENT