Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/79/2017

T. Chandranaika - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorized Singatory, - Opp.Party(s)

C.J. Lakshminarasimha,

30 Jun 2018

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:04/08/2017

DISPOSED      ON:30/06/2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 79/2017

 

DATED:  30^th JUNE 2018

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                          B.A., LL.B., PGD.CLP  

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	Sri T.Chandranaika, S/O Tholasa Naika, Age 56 Years, R/O Pandrahalli Village, Kasaba Hobali, Chitradurga Taluk and Chitradurga District Represented his GPA Holder i.e., his son by name Sri C.Prakash S/O T.Chandranaika, Age29 Years, R/O Pandrahalli Village, Kasaba Hobali, Chitradurga Taluk and Chitradurga District.   (Rep by Sri.C.J. Lakshmi Narasimha, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1) The Authorized  Signatory, M/S Sri  Krishna Agencies, Dealers for John Deere Tractors, Near RTO Office, Turuvanur Road, Chitradurga.   2) The Authorized Signatory/ The Managing Director, John Deere India Pvt., Ltd., Managaladas Road, Sangamavadi, Pune, Maharashtra-411001   3) The Authorized Signatory, John Deere India Pvt., Ltd., Tojer-14, Cyber City, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, Pune-411013   (Rep by Sri.L. Madhusudha, Advocate for OP No.1 and Sri. Jayaramaiah, Advocate for OP No.2 and 3)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C. P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to refund or return the entire vehicle price i.e., Rs.7,43,494/- to the complainant, Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony and sufferings, Rs.1,00,000/- towards inconvenience, Rs.25,000/- towards the Bill amount, Rs.1,00,000/- towards non-functioning of the tractor and Rs.25,000/- towards legal notice charges, Cost and such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he is the owner of the John Deer Tractor bearing its Model No.5050E having its Registration No.KA-16 TB-4075 and the same was purchased by him for his own agricultural use and other bonafide purposes from the OP No.1 on 08.03.2016 by taking financial assistance from ICICI Bank Limited, Davanagere. The Tax Invoice was raised by the OP No.1 on 17.03.2016 for Rs.7,43,494-00 and issued the same to the Complainant.  The OP No.1 to 3 are the  Authorized Dealers for John Deere Tractors, Manufacturers and Head Office of  John Deere Tractors  & all the OPs shall have to give utmost good services to their esteemed customers without any deficiency, defectiveness and also negligence of services at any point of time. There is a clear warrantee for the above said vehicle even till this day.  The Complainant is fairly informed to all the OPs that, after purchase of the said Tractor from the OP No.1, he has faced several critical problems in the said vehicle often and often and again and again since from the date of purchase. The Complainant has left his Tractor with OP No.1 for regular services as per the Warrantee Manual and also Service Manual given by the OP No.1 on behalf of the OP No. 2 and 3.  Such being the case and the things stands stood, during the regular services and also during the warrantee period, the Tyres of the Tractor were damaged and not performing the very necessity of the usage of the Tyres to the said Tractor, there is very low mileage i.e., the said Tractor is giving only 2 KMS/liter of fuel, there is heavy expenses for every service though the OPs are all stated that they are the free services but collecting the amounts in every occasion, there is ruining of clutch plates and non performing of the clutch plates, damages found in the break assembly, low performance for the agricultural purposes of the complainant and other minor with major problems found in the said Tractor.  After enquiry in the market and also performance of the said Tractor with Technical Experts regarding the same, they have stated and opined that the above said problems found in the said Tractor are the major manufacturing defects and that cannot be cured clearly and permanently.  Thereafter the Complainant has informed the same to all the OPs but none of them have not acted upon to the requests of the Complainant and not fulfilled the terms and conditions of the warrantee aspect. It is further submitted by the Complainant that, he tried to rectify the same with OP No.1 for several times by incurring the expenses at least Rs.5,000-00 per visit including fuel expenses but  the above said problems were not rectified by  all the OPs. The Complainant was not ran the said vehicle frequently for his use and occupation due to the above said problems and the OP No.1 has informed the Complainant that the alleged problems of the Complainant may be a manufacturing defects and informed the Complainant to approach the OP No.2 and 3.  Therefore, the very purpose of the purchasing the said vehicle by the Complainant is defeated since the Complainant has invested very huge amount by raising loans and the Complainant is unnecessarily paying the installments and interest for the defective vehicle without use and enjoying the same.  In this connection, the Complainant has sent mails to the OP No.2 and 3 for several times but they went in vein.  It is further submitted that, the above said problems and defects were found in the said vehicle during the warrantee conditions i.e., within 24 months or within 2000 Hours from the date of delivery of the said vehicle or from the date of purchase. Therefore, the Complainant is not satisfied with the service of OPs and also not satisfied with the said vehicle since the above said Tractor supplied by all of OPs is defective one. Due to the negligence, deficiency and defective services of all the OPs, the OPs, the Complainant has suffered lot of physical and mental annoyance, lot of mental agony, lot of financial loss, lot of mental harassment, loss of precious time and incurred very much expenses for the same.  For all defects, the OPs have not acted upon the Complainant with warrantee conditions and OP No.1 has collected the unnecessary charges for replacement of some of the defective parts and also collected the expenses from the Complainant though there is no fault liability on him. Now, the said Tractor is in non-functioning condition and the Complainant is unable to run the same for his day to day necessary affairs including agriculture work.  As such, the Complainant has issued the Legal Notices to the OP No.1 to 3 calling upon them to act as stated in the legal notice, but even getting the knowledge of the same by the OPs, some of the OPs have vaguely replied to the said legal notice but not complied the terms of the legal notices till this day.  The cause of action for filing this complaint has arisen at Chitradurga Town when the OP No.1 has sold and supplied the defective vehicle to the Complainant which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and hence prayed for allowing the complaint.

 3.     After service of notice to the OPs, one Sri. L. Madhusudhan, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP No.1 and filed his version.  On behalf of No.2 and 3, one Sri. Jayaramaiah, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP No.2 and 3 and filed their version. 

According to the version filed by the OP No.1, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in lsw or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine and the complainant is not a consumer as envisaged in C.P. Act and there is no cause of action for filing this false complaint.  Further it is submitted that, the contents of para 2 of the complaint that, complainant is the owner of the John Deer Tractor bearing Model No.5050E with registration No.KA-16 TB 4075 and the complainant has purchased the same for the purpose of agricultural use is not known.  Further it is false to state that, the OP No.1 is the manufacturer of Tractor, it is only a dealer and the OP No.2 and 3 are the manufacturers of the said Tractor.  It is further false to state that there is some problems found in the vehicle within the warrantee period and not given proper mileage, the tyres of the Tractor were damaged, mileage was 2 KMs/liter and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  It is further false to state that, OP No.1 has collected an amount from the complainant at the time of service.  It is further false to state that, the complainant has paid Rs.5,000/- per visit including the fuel expenses.  The OP No.1 submits that, being a dealer this OP No.1 has rendered its good service for the reason whenever the vehicle was brought for service, attended properly and get ready the vehicle to the satisfaction of the complainant.  OP No.1 did not charge for free service as per the terms and conditions.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.  This OP No.1 is only a dealer of the vehicle and not the manufacturer.  The complainant has signed the job cards after the services and took delivery of the vehicle as he was satisfied with the services of the OP No.1.  The vehicle which was in good condition without any defects sold to the complainant who took delivery of the same.  The vehicle is used for other than the agricultural work and not driven by expert Driver and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The version filed by OP No.2 and 3 is that, the complainant is not the purchaser or the owner of tractor bearing Model No.5050E, chassis No.1PY5050ECGA015135, Engine No.PY3029T240221.  As per the records available with the OPs, one Sri. T. Chandranaika is the authorized purchaser from OP No.1, complainant is not the purchaser of the said Tractor from the dealer manufactured by OP No.2 and 3.  The OP No.2 and 3 have provided their best services to their customers as per the terms and conditions enumerated in the Companies Manufacturers Warrantee, the warrantee if any is subject to the terms and conditions and any breach of same disentitles the customers from claiming any benefits against the same.  The Tractor supplied to the complainant is of highest quality and the complainant has taken delivery of the Tractor, after pre-delivery inspection and entire satisfaction and fully complies with the warranties, assurances and specifications provided for it by the manufacturer with regard to the quality of performance of the Tractor.  The Tractor has been given to the complainant after inspection and entire satisfaction.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost and there is no defects found as alleged by the complainant.  Further it is stated that, the complainant had complained of tyres which was immediately reported to the OEM i.e., CEAT Ltd., by the OP No.1’s Technician since it is an OEM’s item.  The OEM’s Engineer duly inspected the tyres and submitted report vide e-mail dated 31.03.2017 stating that, there is no manufacturing defect found in the tyres and hence cannot be covered under warranty.  John Deer is not responsible and does not provide any warranty for proprietary items like fuel injection equipment, tyre, tube, battery, turbo charger starter motor and alternator.  The user shall however get the benefit of such warranties as made available and instituted by the manufacturers of these components and the decision of the OE supplier will be final in regards to warranty settlement.  The OP No.1 informed the complainant to be present during the inspection to confirm the same but, the complainant has failed to do so for the reasons best known to him.  The OP No.2 and 3 have stated that, the complainant has visited the OP No.1 for regular services of the Tractor as per his needs.  It is denied that the Tractor is low mileage and further denied that, the Tractor is giving only 2 Kms/liter of fuel.  Further it is denied that, the complainant has incurred heavy expenses for the services availed.  Further it is submitted that, the running and non-performance of the clutch plates which was immediately looked into by the Technician of OP No.1.  The Technician inspected the said parts and found that, the clutch worn out due to regular wear and tear and however, it was replaced without any cost to the complainant as a gesture of good will.  The John Deer is not responsible and it is does not provide any warranty for normal maintenance parts and/or service including but not limited to oil, filter, coolant, wear parts, cables, brakes, clutch, bearings sealed and un-sealed, gaskets, O-Rings, seals.  There is no manufacturing defects nor negligence or defective service.  The OP No.2 and 3 denied that, they have not agreed to the request of the complainant.  The complainant has always been provided with quality of services relating to the tractor and it is further denied that, the complainant has incurred expenses of Rs.5,000/- per visit including the fuel expenses while visiting OP No.1’s dealership.  It is further denied that, the complainant has invested huge amount by raising loan and is unnecessarily paying the installments and interest for the defective Tractor.  The OP No.2 and 3 instantly approached OP No.1 to look into resolution of this issue.  The tractor was subsequently attended by the OP No.1’s Technician on 13.03.2017 and all necessary repairs were carried out in the Tractor to the entire satisfaction of the complainant.  It is denied that, the Tractor supplied to the complainant is defective one, the Tractor is functioning well and has operated more than 1200 hours which clearly demonstrates that, the complainant is using the Tractor and that there is no manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant.  Further it is denied that, the complainant has not suffered physically and mentally and financial loss, mental harassment, loss of precious time and incurred very much expenses for the same as alleged.  It is further denied that, the OP No.1 has collected the amount from the complainant at the time of service.  It is further denied that, the OP No.1 has not collected any amount from the complainant while it was in the warranty period.  It is further submitted that, the OP No.2 and 3 are not liable to refund or return of the entire vehicle price of the Tractor for Rs.7,43,494/- along with interest at 2% p.m and Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,00,000/- towards inconvenience and Rs.25,000/- towards bell amount during the warranty period and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      One C. Prakash, the GPA of  complainant who is none other than the son of complainant himself examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-18 were got marked and closed his side.  One Sri. Madhu Chilukuri, the Authorized Signatory of Krishna Agencies examined as DW-1 and relied on Ex.B-1 to B-7 documents and on behalf of OP No.2 and 3 one Sri.Surekha Arukar, the General Manager examined as DW-2 and no documents have been got marked and closed their side.

5.      Arguments heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

 

1. Whether the complainant proves that, OPs have committed deficiency of service for non-returning of the price amount of Tractor i.e., Rs.7,43,494/- for supply of defective Tractor to the complainant and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the complaint?

              (2) What order?

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

                    Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

                   Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      Point No.1:- It is not in dispute that, the complainant is the RC owner of John Deer Tractor bearing its model No.5050E having its registration No.KA-16 TB-4075, the same has been purchased from the OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.2 and 3 by obtaining financial assistance of ICICI Bank, Davanagere.   After purchasing the same, there is some defects found in the Tractor i.e., clutch plate problem and mileage problem and filter problem etc.,  With regard to the same, the complainant has approached the OP No.2 for nearly 5 times.  Every time, the OP No.1 has collected amount of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant and get it repaired the same.  But, after the repair, again the same problem found in the Tractor.  As per Ex.B-1 and B-6 nearly 5-6 times, the complainant has approached the OP No.1 to solve the defects found in the Tractor.  As per Ex.B-7 to B-10, the OP No.1 has collected nearly Rs.25,000/- towards repair charges from the complainant.  The vehicle supplied by the OPs is defective one as so many problems found in the said Tractor.  The complainant has approached the OP No.1 and informed that there is a mileage problem in the Tractor supplied by them but, the OP No.1 told that, there is no defects in the service rendered by it, the major defects of the Tractor is a manufacturing defect.  The complainant has issued legal notice to the OPs calling upon them to rectify the defects found in the Tractor but, they failed to rectify the same.  According to the OP No.1, there is a major manufacturing defect in the Tractor and further the defects found in the Tractor, there is a clutch problem, tyre problems, leakage of oil, brake and other major problems. 

The Advocate for OP No.1 has addressed the arguments that, he admitting that the complainant has purchased the vehicle from the OPs and the same was registered as KA-16TB 4075 and further admits that the complainant has obtained loan from the ICICI Bank.  The main arguments addressed by the Advocate for OP No.1 that, the party himself has satisfied the repair made by it.  After the completion of the repair and satisfied by the complainant, the vehicle was delivered to the complainant.  The complainant himself accepts that, the vehicle is in a good condition. 

The Advocate for OP No.2 and 3 addressed his arguments that, there is no manufacturing defects found in the Tractor supplied by them.  The complainant was not properly maintained the vehicle and he has used the said vehicle for other purpose except the agricultural work.  The Engineer of the OP No.2 and 3 has inspected and verified that, there is no manufacturing defect found in the tyres and the Tractor.  The complainant has not properly maintained the same i.e., he was not changed the oil and other parts well in time.  The Tractor prayer is not properly maintained the tractor.  According to the complainant, the tractor was running 2000 hours after that, there is a defects found.  Here up to 2000 hours, there was no defects found in the Tractor. 

9.      We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant and OPs.  It is pertinent to note that, the complainant is the RC owner of the John Deer Tractor bearing its model No.5050E having its registration No.KA-16 TB 4075.  The same has been purchased from the OP No.1 on 08.03.2016 for using the same as agricultural purpose by taking loan from the ICICI Bank, Davanagere.  After taking the delivery from the OP No.1 there is some defects found in the Tractor.  Suddenly, the complainant has approached the OP No.1 i.e., the dealer and for 5-6 times, the same has been repaired by the OP No.1 and collected Rs.25,000/- from the complainant.  Within 2000 hours there is a defects found nearly for 5 times.  The complainant stated before the OP No.1 that the vehicle supplied is defective and told that, he has collected information from others in the society and they told that, there is a manufacturing defect in the Tractor.  The documents produced at Ex.B-1 to B-6 clearly shows that, the Krishna Agency i.e., OP No.1 has supplied job card to the complainant.  As per the job card, there is so many defects found in the parts in the Tractor.  The job card shows that, there is a defects in the vehicle supplied and manufactured by the OPs.  The complainant is a poor person, he has purchased the Tractor for his agricultural purpose by obtaining loan from the Bank.  But, the complainant has suffered mental agony and loss of income and he is not able to repay the loan installments to the Bank due to the defective Tractor manufactured and supplied by the OPs.  The contention taken by the OPs in their version that, there is no manufacturing defects in the Tractor but, the exhibits produced by the OP No.1 shows that, there is a heavy defects found in the Tractor which was manufactured and delivered by the OPs.  The complainant has relied on Ex.A-1 to A-18 those documents are clearly made out that, the OPs have supplied the defective Tractor to the complainant and the documents produced at Ex.A-1 to A-6 are the job cards clearly shows that, the complainant has put the vehicle before the OP No.1 for repairs, those documents shows that, the OP No.1 has collected nearly Rs.25,000/- towards repair charges from the complainant.  The decision submitted by the OP No.1 is not applicable to the case on hand because according to the OP No.1, the complainant has failed to prove that, there is a defects found in the Tractor and they have not obtained any opinion of the Technician but, the opinion of the Technician is not necessary to prove the case of the complainant.  Hence, we come to the conclusion that, there is a defects found in the Tractor which was manufactured and supplied by the OPs and hence, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.          

            10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above points and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

            The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby partly allowed.

            It is ordered that the OP No.2 and 3 are hereby directed to refund the entire price amount of Rs.7,43,494/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of purchase of the Tractor till realization.

            It is further ordered that, the OP No.1 is hereby directed to assist the complainant to recover the same.

            It is further ordered that, the OP No.2 and 3 are hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant. 

            It is further ordered that, the OPs hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

 

            (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 11/06/2018 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)

           

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:- Sri. Madhu Chilukuri, the Authorized Signatory of Krishna Agencies by way of affidavit evidence.

DW-2:- Sri.Surekha Arukar, the General Manager of OP No.2 and 3 by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Original GPA Deed dated 02.06.2017
02	Ex-A-2:-	Attested True Copy of the  RC of the Vehicle
03	Ex-A-3:-	Original Delivery Note dated 07.03.2016
04	Ex-A-4:-	Original/Attested True Copy of Tax Invoice dated 17.03.2016
05	Ex-A-5:-	Self-Attested Copy of Online Copy of the Manufacturers Warrantee
06	Ex-A-6:-	Spare Invoice dated 04.07.2016
07	Ex-A-7:-	Tax invoice dated 13.02.2017
08	Ex-A-8:-	Tax invoice dated 13.03.2017
09	Ex-A-9:-	Spare Invoice dated 22.05.2017
10	Ex-A-10:-	Spare Invoice dated 04.07.2016
11	Ex.A-11:-	Online copy of complaint of CEAT tyres
12	Ex.A-12:-	Online copy of letter sent to OP No.1
13	Ex.A-13:-	Legal Notice dated 02.06.2017
14	Ex.A-14:-	Letter dated 09.06.2017
15	Ex.A-15:-	Reply notice dated 09.06.2017
16	Ex.A-16:-	3 postal receipts
17	Ex.A-17:-	Returned postal cover
18	Ex.A-18:-	Postal acknowledgement

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Job Card dated 14.02.2017
02	Ex-B-2:-	Job Card dated 19.12.2016
03	Ex-B-3:-	Job Card dated 27.05.2016
04	Ex-B-4:-	Job Card dated 04.04.2016
05	Ex-B-5:-	Job Card dated 28.08.2016
06	Ex-B-6:-	Job Card dated 18.03.2016
07	Ex.B-7:-	Job Card dated 13.03.2017

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**