Presented by Sri P.K.Dash, Member:-
The Complainants allege deficiency in service as envisaged under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and the gist of the complaint as follows:-
The Petitioners are father and son in relation belong to village Baidpali, Po/Ps. Gaisilet, Dist. Bargarh. Opposite Party No.1(one) is having its Engineering work shop at Railway Station Road, Bargarh where as Opposite Party No.2(two) is the manufacturer of “Sonalika International Tractors Ltd” within the state of Punjab.
The Petitioners contend that the Opposite Party No.1(one) being, the Proprietor of M/s Padmalaya Engineering works, Bargarh Railway Station Road convinced and sold a new Sonalika Tractor-DI-73011 bearing Chassis No. 0603ZN86437, Engine No. 2102F62C86999 and a Tractor Trolley with Chassis No. PEW/11/06-07 fixing the cost of the tractor at Rs.3,28,000/-(Rupees three lakh twenty eight thousand)only and the trolley at Rs.80,000/-(Rupees eighty thousand)only. The Petitioners made down payment of Rs.75,000/-(Rupees seventy five thousand)only and also gave a Demand Draft of Rs.4,86,000/-(Rupees four lakh eighty six thousand)only to the Opposite Party No.1(one) as per the price and payment list for Tractor, Trolley and its accessories issued by the Opposite Party No.1(one) on Dt.16/03/2007 and the Opposite Party No.1(one) handed over the Tractor and Trolley to the Petitioners on the same day i.e. on Dt.16/03/2007 but issued no documents of sale letter and for battery.
The Petitioners further contend that they used the tractor for their personal purpose but could not use it for commercial purpose due to unavailability of authenticated documents, also could not apply for registration of the tractor and trolley before R.T. Authority.
Further the Petitioners within a period of six month from the date of purchase noticed defects like non functioning of pump, self, hydrolic, oil meter, water meter and timing meter, more consumption of Engine Oil, old battery fitted with the tractor, the engine was in capable to pull load, and colour of the tractor got fainted.
The Petitioners contend that in spite of several oral complaints regarding those defects in the tractor as well as for supply of documents relating to the tractor and trolley, the Opposite Party No.1(one) made a deaf ear to it and ultimately the Petitioners sent advocate notice to the Opposite Party No.1(one) on Dt.17/10/2007. The Opposite Party No.1(one) in his reply asked the Petitioners to bring the tractor to his workshop for complete checkup and repair. The Petitioners did not bring the tractor to the workshop of Opposite Party No.1(one) and demanded replacement of tractor from Opposite Party No.1(one) alleging that Opposite Party No.1(one) had sold them a old Sonalika Tractor with a higher price and in doing so the Opposite Party No.1(one) also defamed the reputation of Opposite Party No.2(two).
Further the Petitioners contend that such act of Opposite Party No.1(one), prevented them from earning profit to make repayment of the bank loan for tractor and trolley which put on them unwanted trouble, loss and mental pressure, is certainly a deficiency of service caused by Opposite Party No.1(one) to the Petitioners.
The Petitioners pray for a direction of the Forum to Opposite Party No.1(one) to supply a new Sonalika Tractor and take away the old one and to compensate Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees one lakh fifty thousand)only to the Petitioners.
The Petitioners filed following documents in support of their contentions
Sale letter of Sonalika International DI-730-II Tractor.
Sale letter of Trolley bearing Chassis No. PEW/01/2006-07.
Motor Insurance Cover Note bearing No.30731.
Price and demand receipt issued by Opposite Party No.1(one).
Reply letter of Opposite Party No.1(one) along with envelope.
R.C. Book of Tractor bearing Regd No. OR-17-E-8820.
Advocate Notice to Opposite Party No.1(one).
Again the Petitioners on Dt.24/06/2013 filed documents as follows:-
R.C. Book bearing No. OR-17-E-8820 of tractor.
R.C. Book No. OR-17-E-8821 of Trolley.
Visiting Card of Shyamala Automobiles.
Bill issued by Chandra Sekhar Garage, Padampur.
Being noticed, the Opposite Party No.2(two) appeared and filed his version through his advocate with a complete denial to the Complaint.
The Opposite Party No.2(two) contends that this Opposite Party is only the manufacturer of Tractor, not the Trolley and being the dealer, Opposite Party No.1(one) deals with the customers. At the time of supply of tractor all the documents are sent to the dealer. Further the dealer is obiliged to supply all the documents along with the sale letter while delivering the tractor to the customers.
Further the Opposite Party No.2(two) contends that the Complainant never complaint of any type of defect in the tractor to this Opposite Party till filing the complaint. Sonalika Tractors are manufactured under quality control system of ISO 9001 and 14001 and after many test the tractors are sent to the market for sale.
The Complainant have lodged this complaint after four years of purchase of the tractor, only to avoid their loan liability and the Complainants are not entitle for any compensation.
Further the Opposite Party No.2(two) contends that the case is otherwise also barred by limitation according to provisions of the Consumer Protection Act-1986.
Further this Opposite Party contends that the Complainants allege many defects in tractor engine but never sought for any expert opinion by seeking a direction of the Forum for test and report from a appropriate laboratory over the alleged tractor and in absence of expert opinion, presumption of defective can not be attributed for adjudication.
The Opposite Party No.2(two) contends that neither any cause of action nor any allegation made out against him for deficiency in service rendered at any point of time and prays for dismissal of the complaint against him with cost.
Having been noticed the Opposite Party No.1(one) appeared and filed his version through his legal counsel denying all the allegations made against him by the Complainant.
The Opposite Party No.1(one) contends that one pleader notice was served on this Opposite Party by the Complainant and it's prompt reply had been tendered immediately by Opposite Party No.1(one) asking the Complainant to bring the tractor to his workshop for complete checkup and repair. Besides as and when any problem brought into the knowledge of this Opposite Party by the Complainant, services were made without any delay and also kept all the records of the job done for the Complainants.
Further the Opposite Party No.1(one) contends that the allegation of the Complainant as averred by the Complainants is a nature of manufacturing defects and he being the dealer can not be held responsible or liable for the same. The Opposite Party No.1(one) further contends that for proper adjudication of such complaint the vehicle ought to be exposed for scientific and /or expert verification.
The Opposite Party No.1(one) contends that the Complainants have taken delivery of the tractor after proper verification and fulfilling the criteria and documentation to their all satisfaction. The Complainants never complaint before him of any such defect in the tractor.
The Opposite Party No.1(one) further contends that the complaint is also otherwise barred by limitation and also not maintainable in this Forum under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and for non joinder of necessary parties as the financing bank has not been made party in this case. The Opposite Party No.1(one) has refused any negligence or deficiency in rendering service towards the Complainant and prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost
The Opposite Party No.1(one) has filed his written argument along with citation.
Gone through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, the issues likely to the decided as follows:-
Is there any deficiency in service ?
To what relief the Complainant are entitle for ?
From the close view of the entire complaint petition and documents, the allegation against the Opposite Party No.1(one) that he sold the alleged tractor to the Complainants with all the defects and also did not supply the required documents in time for which the Complainants sustained great loss and difficulties.
The defects pointed out in para-4(four) of the complaint are nature of manufacturing as well as mechanical defects. The Complainants have not bring this facts to the notice of the Opposite Party No.2(two) i.e. the manufacturer of Sonalika International Tractor till filing of this complaint for its interferrence and help. Rather in the reply letter Dt.20/10/2007 to the advocate Notice Dt.17/10/2007 of the Complainants, the Opposite Party No.1(one) has asked the Complainants to bring the alleged tractor to his workshop for check up and repair but the Complainants never presented the tractor at the work shop of Opposite Party No.1(one) for check up and repair. To substantiate such allegation as to nature of manufacturing defect in the tractor engine the Complainants neither opt for a direction of the Forum for expert opinion/laboratory test of the tractor engine and parts nor established any evidence that there was any manufacturing defects in the engine of the tractor. Besides the complaint has been lodged after more than four years of the purchase of tractor which also goes contrary to the interest of the Complainants.
In such circumstances without having an expert opinion/laboratory test of tractor engine, this allegation has no legal force and the Complainant is not entitled for replacement of the tractor and this contention is very well discussed and reflected in the case law “ Escorts Tractors ltd co. Vrs Gajanand” in 1997(3) CPR 285 (Jaipur).
The registration certificates of the tractor bearing No. OR-17-E-8820 and Trolly bearing No. OR-17-E-8821 has been issued on Dt.29/01/2008 by R.T. Authority not much after the purchase of tractor and trolly and also the financing bank of the tractor and trolly has not been made party in this case. So the unavailability of all the documents of tractor and trolly to the Complainants in time and for which they could not able to repay the bank installments for loan in time is not accepted by this Forum.
One more thing is noticed in this case is that in spite of request by the Opposite Party No.1(one) in its reply letter Dt.20/10/2007, to bring the tractor for necessary check up and repair, the Complainants never chose to visit the workshop of Opposite Party No.1(one) to avail free services of the tractor or complaint before Opposite Party No.1(one) or Opposite Party No.2(two) about manufacturing defects during subsistence of warranty.
In the instant case in absence of any evidence as to mechanical or manufacturing defects in chassis and in engine of the alleged tractor, no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved. This contention is very well dealt and reflected in “Ashok Leyland Ltd Vrs Probulal Maru and others in 2005 NCJ 58 (NC).
The Complaint is having no merit. Hence there is no necessity as to answer the issue No.2(two).
Having regards to all the facts, evidence, assertion and counter assertions of the parties the Forum comes to a conclusion that Opposite Party No.1(one) and Opposite Party No.2(two) are not liable for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice in rendering service to wards the Complainant.
Hence the complaint is dismissed and the case is disposed of accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, I agree, I agree,
(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash) (Smt. Anjali Behera) (Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak)
M e m b e r. M e m b e r. P r e s i d e n t.
