Complaint filed on: 29.01.2015
Complaint Disposed on:26.11.2016
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.14/2015
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016
: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:
Devarajappa .S
S/o Shankarappa R,
Aged about 55 years,
R/o Asandi Village & Post,
Kadur Taluk,
Chikmagalur District.
(By Sri/Smt. L.P.Sathish, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT:
1. Tafe Tractors and Farm
Equipments Ltd.,
77, Nungambakam,
High Road, Chennai-600 034.
2. Sri. Srnivasa Tractors and
Farm Equipments,
Nagarjuna Arcade,
B.H.Road, Kadur – 577 548.
3. Mahalakshmi Tractors,
Authorized dealers for Tafe,
M.F.Tractors, Sales, Service
And spares, Near Bolarameshwara
Temple, K.M.Road, Chikmagalur.
(OP-1 By Sri/Smt. Rukmini .D, Advocate)
(OP-2 By Sri/Smt. D.L.Ramanuja Char, Advocate)
(OP-3 – Ex-parte)
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 a defective tractor. Hence, prays for direction against OP Nos. 1 & 2 to replace the said defective tractor with a new one or to refund the value of the tractor with interest at the rate of 12% PA along with compensation for deficiency in service.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant has purchased M.F.7250 tractor from OP No.2 on 12/10/2013 by paying Rs.5,85,000/- and OP No.2 has issued receipt No.745 in this regard. The said tractor was manufactured by OP No.1. After purchase of the tractor, the complainant registered the tractor in his name vide registration No.KA-18-TA-6354. After purchase of the tractor, the complainant used the vehicle for agricultural operation. When he is using the tractor, he noticed that there is a problem with pick-up pulling and its pump also defective. Further he also noticed that the hydraulic system is also defective one. Immediately he brought the said defects to the notice of OP No.2 and as per the direction of the OP No.2, the vehicle was left with him for repair. Subsequently, the OP No.2 repaired the said tractor with OP No.3 who is authorized service center of OP Nos. 1 & 2 and OP No.3 has collected the repair charges from complainant.
The complainant further contended that even after repair of the vehicle, the problems were not rectified and complainant noticed the same problems persisted in the vehicle. Again, the complainant visited the OP No.2 with a complaint of the same problems. For which, the OP No.2 asked the complainant to leave the vehicle for proper repair. After certain time, the OP No.2 returned the vehicle by stating that the vehicle was repaired and problems/defects are rectified, but complainant noticed that there was no any repair was done from OP Nos. 2 & 3. Hence, the OP Nos. 1 to 3 have sold a defective tractor to the complainant.
The complainant further alleges that within a short period of purchase of the tractor, the complainant noticed manufacturing defects in the vehicle. Even in spite of repair of the vehicle, the problems were not rectified. Hence, there is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle sold by OP Nos. 1 to 3. Hence, the complainant prays for replacement of the said tractor.
The complainant also issued a legal notice dated:31/12/2014 and called upon the OP Nos. 1 & 2 to replace the defective tractor. Even in spite of receipt of the legal notice also, the OP Nos. 1 & 2 have not complied the legal notice. Hence, complainant filed this complaint and prays for replacement of the said tractor or in alternative to refund the amount paid towards the purchase of the said tractor along with compensation for unfair trade practice.
3. After service of notice the OP Nos. 1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed the version. The OP No.3 placed Ex-parte.
The OP No.1 in his version has contended that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has filed this false complaint in order to gain wrongfully. The complainant also suppressed the material facts. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The complainant has purchased the tractor from OP No.2 on 12/10/2013 vide invoice No.745 bearing Chassis No.846809, engine No.S325E84795. At the time of sale of the tractor there was no any manufacturing defect. The complainant has brought the said tractor before OP No.2 with a problem of pick-up pulling problem. The said problems were rectified and tractor was given to the complainant on 29/11/2014. Again on 02/12/2014 the complainant approached the OP No.2 with a problem of clutch and pick-up was slow through complaint in Job card No.17. The said complaints were also resolved and Delphi pump was repaired and was given free of cost towards repair and handed over the tractor to the complainant. After taking back the tractor on 03/12/2014 the complainant has given endorsement stating that he has satisfied with the repairs done by Ops and has given a satisfaction letter. Thereafter the complainant without any valid reasons has issued a legal notice and called upon the OP Nos. 1 to 3 to replace the said tractor. The complainant without any basis in order to gain wrongfully had issued a legal notice and filed this complaint alleging unfair trade practice.
The OP No.1 further contended that though the small minor problems arose on the said tractor, they were rectified since there was a complaint received from the complainant. They have issued a job card in this regard. The complainant just to grab new tractor from this OP, has filed this false complaint with false allegations.
The OP No.1 further contended that at the time of purchase of the tractor, they have instructed the complainant to drive the same within a stipulated speed and not to over speed till first service. The complainant has not adhered to the advice of the OP No.1 and used the new tractor in a rough and tuff manner with high speed against the recommended procedures. There is negligence on the part of complainant himself. Hence, there is no manufacturing defect found in the tractor and they are not liable to pay any amount as claimed in the complaint or they are not liable to replace the said tractor with a new one. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
The OP No.2 in his version has contended that they are the authorized dealer of OP No.1 tractors and subsequently this OP surrendered the dealership to OP No.1/Company by writing a letter dated 15/05/2014 and same was accepted by OP No.1/Company through their letter dated 06/06/2014 and from 06/06/2014 this OP is not authorized agent of OP No.1. Hence, the complaint and allegations against this OP is not maintainable. This OP is not concerned with the dispute raised by complainant with manufacturing defect. It is true that the complainant has purchased TAFE Tractor on 12/10/2013 by paying Rs.5,85,000/-. It is also true that the complainant brought the vehicle on 05/11/2013 with a complaint of brake problem and pick-up. The OP No.2 has noticed the problem and he repaired the same and further the Dynamo wire was disconnected and the wire was adjusted along with brake adjustment and after the said repairs, the complainant took the delivery of the vehicle on the same day. Subsequently on 06/03/2014 the tractor again was brought for repair on the ground that there is shortage of oil in the gear box and on check up of the vehicle, this OP noticed that the oil was below the minimum mark and the gear box oil was filled up with the maximum mark and the tractor was delivered to the complainant on the same day. Again, on 24/03/2014 the complainant brought the tractor for second service; at the time of service, the complainant complained with respect of the hydraulic lever not working. On observation it was noticed that the hydraulic liver was not properly engaged by the driver, as such the hydraulic PC and DC lever adjustment was made. Apart from doing oil services like diesel and oil filter replacement and engine oil was filled up to maximum level and air filter was also washed and filter pipe was washed and after entire minor repairs and services they have handed over the tractor to complainant on the same day. Again on 19/05/2014 the complainant came with a complaint of oil leakage and hydraulic pump problem. On examination it was noticed that the washer was damaged and the same was replaced and after repair the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 20/05/2014. Again, on the next day itself the complainant brought the tractor for repair with a problem of hydraulic system is not working properly. On observation, we noticed that the driver of the tractor has wrongly operated the lever and on account of the same it was not working properly. The said problem also rectified and intimated the complainant that the driver had not driven the vehicle properly and the PC and DC levers were adjusted and lip cover packing was replaced. After the said repair, the said hydraulic system was working properly.
Subsequently on 31/07/2014 again the complainant brought the tractor for 3rd service. At that time the second OP informed that they were not the dealer of the said tractor and they are not authorized to do any service. But complainant insisted this OP to do 3rd service. As per the request made by complainant this OP provided 3rd service to the tractor and adjusted the brakes. Thereafter on 18/08/2014 he brought the vehicle to the service station and informed that there is a problem of hydraulic lifting. Again this OP also informed that he will not take up the repair as they are not authorized agent of the OP No.1. But the complainant requested this OP for repair of the tractor in order to keep good relationship, this OP took the repair work and replaced the D.C. liver which was damaged. The second OP took the tractor for testing in the field and ploughing was done and it was found that the same is running in good condition and normal. After satisfying the repair, the complainant took the tractor on 18/08/2014 itself. Thereafter the complainant had not approached this OP for any repairs. Hence, all the complaints given by complainant were repaired during the 1st to 3rd service. Hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation and they are also not liable to replace the tractor to complainant and there is no any unfair trade practice on the part of this OP. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant filed affidavit and marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P8. The Ops also filed affidavit and marked the documents as Ex.R1 to R7.
5. Heard the arguments:
6. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is unfair trade practice on the part of Ops?
2. Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
7. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Negative
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
8. On going through the pleadings, affidavits and documents produced by both complainant and Ops 1 & 2 there is no dispute that the OP No.2 sold the tractor having engine No.S325E84795 and chassis No.846809 to complainant on 12/10/2013. The said tractor was manufactured by OP No.1/Company. There is also no dispute that the complainant after purchase has brought the said tractor for repairs to OP No.2, for which the said OP No.2 also repaired and rendered required services to the vehicle.
9. On going through the affidavit sworn by OP No.2 along with the documents, we noticed that the complainant brought the vehicle with a complaint of pick-up and pulling problem. For which, the second OP sent it for repair to authorized service center i.e. OP No.3. After the said rectification, again the complainant brought the said tractor with a complaint of hydraulic liver is not working properly. For which also on 24/03/2014 they have adjusted the hydraulic PC and DC lever along with adjustment of the liver was made and at the time of said repair they have informed the complainant that the driver has to drive the vehicle properly and he has not engaged the liver properly at the time of driving. Hence, they have adjusted the liver and handed over the tractor to the complainant. Thereafter up-to 3rd service the complainant brought the vehicle with one or the other repairs.
10. On going through the job cards i.e. Ex.R1 to R7 we noticed that the complainant has given a complaint with respect to the D.C. liver, hydraulic is not working properly and leakage of the oil in the hydraulic pipe. We noticed that the complainant has came up with the same complaint with respect to the hydraulic liver problem and on all occasions, the OP No.2 noticed that it is due to the negligence on the part of driver who was driving the vehicle. Even we noticed that the complainant at the 3rd service has received the vehicle with full satisfaction. Further, we noticed that the repairs done by OP Nos. 2 & 3 are all minor repairs which require a service. The said defects were found due to negligent driving of the vehicle. The OP Nos. 1 & 2 at the time of sale of the tractor have provided user’s manual. The complainant has not used the tractor as per the user’s manual. Hence, the problems arose we found there is no complaints with respect to the engine of the tractor. Hence, we cannot consider that the tractor is having manufacturing defect. The leakage of oil and hydraulic problem are not major problems, it requires regular service and proper usage of the tractor. As such there is a contributory negligence on the part of driver who was driving the vehicle. As such the complaint is not entitled for replacement of the tractor. We also noticed in the job card that the complainant had plied the vehicle up-to 728 hours. After using such a long hours, the complainant filed this complaint alleging manufacturing defect. If at all the complainant alleges manufacturing defect on the tractor, he should brought the complaint at the earliest point of time. Instead of that, he came with a complaint in the year 2015 i.e. after lapse of nearly two years. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to get any claim as per the complaint and complainant failed to establish the unfair trade practice on the part of OP Nos. 1 to 3. As such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. As such for the above said reason, we answer the point Nos. 1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by him, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 26th day of November 2016).
(RAVISHANKAR)
President
(B.U.GEETHA) (H. MANJULA)
Member Member
