This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing; in the presence of Sri. Dendukuru Madhu, Advocate for complainant; and of Sri. G. Harender Reddy, Advocate for Opposite parties No.1&2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased Sonalika International Tractor on 17-03-2011 from the shop of opposite party No.2 for the purpose of Agricultural operations in his fields.  The tractor started giving troubles of leakage of gas and oozing of oil within 10 days from the date of purchase.  It has no pickup and could not plough and transport the agricultural goods.  Upon which, shifted the same to the showroom of opposite party No.2 on 04-05-2011.  After verification, the opposite party No.2 opined that the problem was due to engine bore and after changing of engine handed over the tractor to the complainant.   The complainant also stated that within 10 days he observed that the tractor was not completely repaired, due to which, the leakage of gas, oozing of oil and downfall of pickup problems were once again arose.  Therefore, the tractor was brought to the showroom, the opposite party No.2 again changed the engine.  After changing of engine for 2^nd time, it worked for 10 days, thereafter, started giving the same problems, once again the opposite party No.2 changed the engine but within 3 months from the date of 1^st repair, the tractor was brought to the showroom with same problems on 4^th occasion.  Again the opposite party No.2 changed the engine but the problems were not rectified inspite of changing of engine on 4^th occasion, that too, within the period of warranty, vexed with the same, the complainant demanded the opposite parties either to replace with new one or to refund the cost of the tractor together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of purchase.  The complainant further submitted that usually the tractor will be bored after running of 50,000 hours but the present tractor was not run properly even for 10 days from the date of purchase, due to which, he suffered a lot and sustained loss of Rs.5,00,000/- during the agricultural season of 2011 and unable to pay loan amounts @ Rs.2,00,000/- availed for purchasing of tractor and spent Rs.25,000/- towards repairs and as such prayed to pay Rs.9,15,000/- as mentioned above along with Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony together with interest @12% per annum and costs.

3.       In support of his case, the complainant filed affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A6.

4.       After service of notice, the opposite party No.1 filed counter by denying the averments of complainant.

In its written version, the opposite party No.1 submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and cannot sued the opposite party No.1 in its personal capacity and also submitted that the complainant failed to make the necessary party to the present proceedings and denied all the other allegations, leveled in the complaint.  The opposite party No.1 further submitted that the tractor was brought to the opposite party No.1 on 16-07-2011, on insistence of complainant, instead of no major problem, changed the engine on good will basis.  After that, the engine was not replaced.  According to the warranty, the liability is up to 1 year or 1500 hours, whichever is earlier.  The complainant did not disclose that how many hours the tractor was worked.  Usually, the performance of tractor would depending on the type of work, done by the tractor and it must be used according to the user manual.  Further it is also submitted that apart from minor wear and tear, there is no manufacturing defect in the tractor and as such there is no liability on the part of it and prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs. 

The opposite party No.2 filed a memo by stating that to treat the averments of the counter of opposite party No.1 as its counter averments.

5.       During the course of proceedings, the complainant filed a petition vide IA.No.39/2014 by praying to appoint an advocate / commissioner to investigate the mechanical defects and other problems in the tractor bearing No.AP-20-AH-5194 with the help of Motor Vehicle Inspector.  During the pendency of said petition, the opposite parties filed photocopy of customer satisfaction letter dt. 28-07-2014, marked as exhibit B1 on behalf of opposite parties.

6.       In view of above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

Point:-        

According to the aforesaid averments, the complainant had purchased Sonalika International Tractor from the opposite party No.2 on 17-03-2011, manufactured by opposite party No.1.  within few days, it started giving troubles – leakage of gas, oozing of oil, no pickup, even could not plough and not useful to transport agricultural products.  Within 3 months from the date of purchase, it was shifted to showroom for rectification of defects.  According to the complainant, it was shifted to showroom for 4 times and even after replacement of engine on every occasion, the problems were not rectified till filing of present complaint.  Therefore, knocked the doors of this Forum by praying to replace the tractor with new one or to refund the cost of the tractor.  On the other hand the opposite parties denied all the allegations of complainant by submitting that once the engine was replaced by them on good will basis on 16-07-2011 and also averred that except minor repairs, there is no manufacturing defect in the tractor.  During the course of proceedings, in support of their case, filed customer satisfaction letter dt. 28-07-2014 marked under exhibit B1, reveals that after rectification of defects, the tractor was in good condition and after satisfying the condition of the tractor by the complainant, handed over the same to him.  Since then, there is no representation from the complainant.  After giving sufficient chances, the matter was posted for orders.  Moreover, on behalf of complainant, no documents were filed to prove the manufacturing defect except filing of some bills.  In view of above circumstances we cannot fasten any liability as alleged by the complainant without cogent proof and as such the point is answered accordingly against the complainant.

7.       In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.   

           Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 23^rd day of September, 2015.

                                                  FAC President               Member      

                                           District Consumer Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant                                                       For Opposite party  

       None                                                                             None

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant                                                       For Opposite party

FAC President               Member

     District Consumer Forum, Khammam.