D.O.F:23/07/2020
D.O.O:09/06/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.82/2020
Dated this, the 09th day of June 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Sethumadhavan.K.R
Secretary, Kallar Padashekara
Nellulpadaka Samithy
Malakallu, Post. Pin 671532 : Complainant
Kasaragod – Dist.
And
- The Managing Director
V.S.T. Tillers Tractors Limited
Post Box No: 4801
Mahadevapura. Post.
(Adv: C. Krishnakumar)
- The Raidco Kerala Ltd, : Opposite Parties
Kanhangad Branch
Behind Old Muncipal Bus Stand
S.N Arcade, Kanhangad Post
Kasaragod Dist.
(Adv: Vinay M.E & T.C Narayanan)
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The complaint is filed for compensation on the ground of service deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
The fact of the case in brief is that the Complainant, being the secretary of a Padashekhara Nellulpadaka Samithi had purchased a 22HP VST Mitsubishi Mini Tractor from the opposite parties on 20.05.2015. The Opposite Party No.1 is the manufacturer of the Mini Tractor and the opposite party No.2 is the dealer. After 2 months of the purchase, a staff of the opposite party No.2 called the Complainant over phone and informed that the piston of the 22HP VST Mitsubishi Mini Tractor supplied during the period has some complaint and informed that technicians of the Opposite Party No.1 would come with new piston and replace the defective piston. Even though the Complainant waited for the technicians, nobody had come with new piston, at that time. There after that the piston got stuck during work at 411thhour before 5th service and the same was informed to the opposite parties. A service man Mr.Boopeshkumarof Opposite Party No.1 came and inspected the tractor and told that the engine got stuck due to the complaint of the piston. The tractor was sent to the workshop of Opposite Party No.1 at Coimbatore for repair in a Pickup tempo, on 21.06.2018, as advised by the above said technician of Opposite Party No.1. Even though it was offered that the tractor would be delivered within 7 days, after repair there was much delay. At last the tractor was delivered on payment of Rs.48,000/- towards repair charge. The Complainant also paid Rs.15,200/- for transportation to and fro. But the tractor again became defective. When informed about the complaint, the Opposite Party No.1 offered that it would be cured immediately. But it was not done. When asked about the reimbursement of the repair charge, Opposite Party No.1 offered that the amount would be credited to the account of the dealer, the Opposite Party No.2. But when enquired with the Opposite Party No.2, it was told that only the price of the Piston would be reimbursed. It is submitted that the tractor became inoperative due to the defect of the piston and since the Opposite Party No.1 did not replace the defective original piston, the entire tractor became defunct. Even after repairing by spending huge amount the tractor could not be used for the purpose of the farmers. When the Complainant contacted with the technician, he said that the repair work would be conducted only on payment of necessary charges. The acts of the opposite parties amount to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, due to which the Complainant suffered mental agony and several hardships apart from monitory loss. Hence this complaint is filed for an order directing the Opposite Parties to pay compensation and costs.
The Opposite Parties entered appearance through their respective counsels, who filedseparate versions. As per the version of the Opposite Party No.1,the complaint is false frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable in law.The Opposite Party No.1 admitted the purchase of the tractor from them, which was supplied through the Opposite Party No.2.The Opposite Party No.1 denied all other allegations in the complaint. The Opposite Party No.1 submitted that the warranty service provided to the above product is for 12 months or 750 working hours, whichever occur earlier, from the date of purchase. The warranty was allowed only to parts that itself subjected to certain conditions. Services are provided as follows: (1). service-50 hours/30days, (2).service-50 hours/30days, (3) service-50 hours/30days,(4)service-50 hours/30days,(5)service-50 hours/30days. The Complainant registered his complaint only in2020 and warranty condition were violated and not having the right to claim warranty benefits. More over during the warranty period, all repair and replacement should be carried out by Opposite Party No.1 and its authorised representative and the Opposite Party is not responsible for change during repair carried out by unauthorised person. Since the complaint was registered after the expiry period of warranty, the Opposite Party No.1 is not liable to compensate the Complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite PartyNo.1 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed
As per the version of the Opposite Party No.2, the complaint is false frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable in law. The Opposite PartyNo.2 admitted the purchase of the tractor from them on 11.03.2015 and not on 20.05.2015 as alleged in the complaint. The Opposite Party No.2 denied all other allegations in the complaint. The Opposite Party submitted that the warranty service provided to the above product is for 12 months or 750 working hours, which ever occur earlier from the date of purchase. The warranty was allowed only to parts that itself subjected to certain conditions.
Services are provided as follows.(1). service-50 hours/30days, (2). service-50 hours/30days, (3) service-50 hours/30days, (4)service-50 hours/30days, (5)service-50 hours/30days.The Complainant registered his complaint only in2020 and warranty condition were violated and not having the right to claim warranty benefits. More over during the warranty period, all repair and replacement should be carried out by Opposite Party No.1 and its authorised representative and the Opposite Party is not responsible for change during repair carried out by unauthorised person. The tractor was purchased on 11.03 2015 and the warranty expired on 10.03.2016. Since the complaint was registered in 2020, after the expiry period of warranty, the Opposite Party is not liable to compensate the Complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite PartyNo.2 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
An expert commission has been appointed as per the order in IA No.45/2021 filed by the Complainant, who filed report dated29.03.20121, after inspection.
The Complainant filed the proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and produced documents, which are marked as Ext. A1 to A8 and Ext.C1.
The Ext.A1 and A2 are photographs, Ext.A3 is a copy of Invoice for Rs.19,419.20/-dated 30.06.2018, Ext. A4 is a copy of Invoice for Rs.9,384.54/- dated 30.06.2018,Ext.A5 is a copy of Invoice for Rs.4,749.50 dated 30.06.2018, Ext.A6 is a copy of Bill for Rs.14,844.00/- dated 30.06.2018, Ext.A7 series (5 in numbers)are copies of letters issued by the Complainant to the opposite parties. Ext.A8 is a CD of Audio clip. Thereafter the Complainant produced some more documents as per memo dated 13.05.2022, which are marked as Ext.A9 and A10. Ext.A9 is a copy of letter dated18.05.2016 issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.2, Ext.A10 is the service log book issued by the Opposite Party No.1. Apart from the PW1 the Expert Commissioner is examined as PW2.
From the side of the Opposite Parties one Mr.Sathyanarayanan a technical staff of Opposite Party No.1 is examined as DW1 and marked a document as Ext B1. The Ext.B1 is the Operator’s Manual & Service Logbook
Based on the pleadings and evidence of the rival parties in this case the followingissues are framed for consideration
1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice or service deficiency on the part of any of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, both these issues are considered together.
Here the case of the Complainant is that the 22HP VST Mitsubishi Mini Tractor purchased by him from the opposite parties became defunct and the opposite parties could not cure the defects in spite of repair spending huge amount. The Complainant submits that the original piston of the Mini Tractor sold by the opposite parties was defective and due to that the Mini tractor became defunct. Even though the Opposite Party No.1 offered to replace the piston it was not done.
The Opposite Parties submitted that the warranty service provided to the above product is for 12 months or 750 working hours, whichever occur earlier from the date of purchase. The warranty was allowed only to parts, that itself subjected to certain conditions. The Complainant registered his complaint only in 2020 and warranty condition were violated and not having the right to claim warranty benefits.
The PW1 Complainant adduced evidence in consonance with the complaint. The PW2 the expert commissioner also examined as PW2,who deposed in consonance with his report. The document Ext.C1 is the report of the expert commissioner. The Ext.C1 would show that on physical inspection found the engine inserted cylinder sleeves and piston, instead of replacing the entire cylinder block. On thorough inspection found the liners have lesser fit and finish, it increases friction and produces more heat, high oil and fuel consumption. Hence the customer version is genuine and this may be rectified by replacement of genuine parts.
As per the complaint the Mini Tractor was purchased on 20.05.2015.But the opposite party submit that the purchase was on 11.03.2015. Any way it was in the year 2015.
The Ext.A10 the Service log book consists of the warranty card. It shows that the warranty service provided to the above product is for 12 months or 750 working hours, whichever occur earlier from the date of purchase. There is no case for the Complainant that the Mini Tractor became defective and inoperative due to the defects in the original piston during the warranty period.
In this case, the Mini tractor became defective during the year 2018 and the same was taken to Coimbatore work shop on for repair in a Pickup tempo, on 21.06.2018,after the expiry of the warranty period.
More over there is no evidence to show that the original piston had any manufactural defect. The expert commissioner in Ext.C1 report, categorically reported that the complainant failed to produce the replaced (damaged) piston, piston rings and connecting rode assembly.
Therefore it cannot be held that the Complainant is entitled for the benefit of warranty service. Replacement etc. are not available. But regarding the repair work the opposite parties cannot go scot free.
The Complainant submitted that when they informed the opposite parties that the Mini Tractor became defective, a service man Mr. Boopesh kumar of opposite party No.1 came and inspected the tractor and told that the engine got stuck due to the complaint of the piston. The tractor was sent to the workshop of Opposite Party No.1 at Coimbatore for repair in a Pickup tempo, on 21.06.2018, as advised by the technician of Opposite Party No.1. Even though it was offered that the tractor would be delivered within 7 days, after repair there was much delay. At last the tractor was delivered on payment of Rs.48,000/- towards repair charge. The Complainant also paid Rs.15,200/- for transportation to and fro. But the tractor again became defective. When informed about the complaint, the opposite party No.1 offered that it would be cured immediately. But it was not done.
The Opposite Parties has no case that they duly attended the complaints of the Mini Tractor and cured the defects at that time. Being the manufacturer and dealer, they are duty bound to tender service of the Mini Tractor and make it in working condition, but they failed to do so, in spite of repeated requests. That is evident from the document Ext.C1, the report of the expert commissioner. The Ext.C1 would show that on physical inspection found the engine inserted cylinder sleeves and piston, instead of replacing the entire cylinder block. On thorough inspection found the liners have lesser fit and finish, it increases friction and produces more heat, high oil and fuel consumption. Hence the customer version is genuine and this may be rectified by replacement of genuine parts. The Complainant submitted that the paddy farmers faced much difficulties in their cultivation due to the defects of the Mini Tractor. But the opposite parties were heedless towards their difficulties.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this commission is of the view that there is service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties, due to which the complainant, who is the secretary of paddy farmers committee, suffered mental agony and hardships, apart from monitory loss. Both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate for that. This commission holds that an amount of Rs.50,000/- would be a reasonable compensation in this case.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) as compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as litigation cost to the complainant.
Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of copy of this judgment.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 & A2 – Photographs
A3 to A5- Invoice
A6- Bill
A7 Series- Copies of letters issued by the complainant to the Ops.
A8- CD
A9- Copy of letter
A10- Service log book
C1- Expert Commissioner Report
Witness Examined
Pw1- Sethumadhavan
Pw2- Dineshan.K
DW1- Sathyanarayana. G
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
