DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 423 of 6.10.2016

                                      Decided on:           22.11.2019

Suresh Pal son of Sh.Chandu Lal r/o H.No.231 Village Bathoi Kalan Tehsil and District Patiala through his attorney Holder Sh.Ashok Kumar son of Suresh Pal     r/o H.No.231 Village Bathoi Kalan Tehsil and District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       Tractor and Farm Equipment Limited through its Managing Director 35 Nungambakam High Road,Chennai-600034.

2.       Tractor and Farm Equipment Limited through its Regional Officer, SCF 17 2nd Floor Orient Cinema Road BRS Nagar, Ludhiana.

3.       M/s Kissan Agro through its Prop. Devigarh Road Jourian Sadkan Opposite Dhillion Fun World Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. M.P.Singh Pahwa, President

                                      Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, Member

                                      Sh.B.S.Dhaliwal, Member

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Sudhir Kumar,Advocate,counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Inderpal Singh,Advocate, counsel for OPs No.1&2.

                                      Sh.Lavleen Singh,Advocate, counsel for OP No.3.                

ORDER

                                     M.P.SINGH PAHWA,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Suresh Pal through his attorney Sh.Ashok Kumar(hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Tractor and Farm Equipment Limited  and others (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that he had purchased TAFF tractor Model 9500 on 21.10.2014 manufactured by OPs No.1&2.This tractor was purchased from authorized dealer of the manufacturer i.e. OP No.3 for Rs.7lac. At that time the authorized dealer and the manufacturer had given warranty and guarantee that in case there is any type of defect or manufacturing defect the company will do each and every thing by replacing the parts or to get the tractor in order. On this assurance, the complainant purchased the tractor.
3. It is alleged that right from the very beginning the tractor started giving trouble as clutch was very hard, gear system was not in proper order. After putting the first gear when shifting to the second gear and third gear, tractor give loud voice and even failed to push up the tractor as it should be. The gear system also give loud sound even when the tractor was put in order in reverse/back gear. There is manufacturing defect in staring head as the staring head is very hard one.The lift control of the tractor did not work properly at all.Even at the time of starting of the tractor it used to spread over black smoke. Complainant informed about the problems suffered by him to the dealer i.e. OP No.3. The dealer failed to get the defect removed. Even the mechanic of the company told the complainant that this is a manufacturing defect and it cannot be removed. The clutch system was changed by OP No.3 on 19.4.2015 but still the tractor is giving the problem as earlier at the time of purchase.
4. It is further pleaded that the complainant number of times approached OP No.3 and even wrote letters to the company by giving details of the manufacturing defect in the tractor. He requested to change the tractor or to get the manufacturing defect removed but all in vain. He has suffered mental, physical and monetary loss without any fault. The OPs are duly and legally bound to replace or remove the manufacturing defect as per warranty and guarantee.
5. It is further pleaded that he had shown the tractor to a private mechanic having got experience in repairing the tractor. He checked the tractor and found these defects.
6. On this background of the facts, the complainant has alleged that the OPs played unfair trade practice with him by delivering the tractor having manufacturing defect. The complainant suffered from huge financial loss and also mental and physical harassment.
7. The complainant has claimed the refund of Rs.7lac, price of the tractor, Rs.2lac compensation for harassment. Hence this complaint.
8. Upon notice, OPs appeared through their respective counsels and contested the complaint by filing written reply.
9. In reply OPs No.1&2 raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable and complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint is false and frivolous and has been filed just to extract easy money.
10. It is further alleged that the TAFF is an Indian company incorporated in 1961 under the provisions of India Companies Act and is in the business of manufacturing, selling and exporting wide range of products like tractors, farm machinery etc. TAFF is the third largest tractor manufacturer in the world and second largest in India. Its tractor plants are certified under ISO 9001 and ISO 4001 for their environmentally friendly operations.
11. On merits OPs No.1&2 have admitted that the complainant had purchased the tractor model 9500 on 12.10.2014 manufactured by it from their authorized dealer i.e. OP No.3.
12. It is further mentioned that the business relationship between them and its dealer is purely principal to principal relationship.
13. It is denied that the complainant had purchased the tractor only on the warranty given by the OPs.
14. It is further mentioned that the complainant was handed over the operator instructions book (manual) alongwith tractor in which terms and conditions of the warranty are provided. There is no other warranty or kind of assurance given by the OPs separately. Complainant has miserably failed to establish or prove any manufacturing defect in the tractor. He has based his complaint on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations. The tractor is fully functional and in perfect workable condition. After getting fully satisfied by regular maintenance / service and knowing fully well that the tractor is in perfect condition, the complainant has taken the delivery of the tractor on 18.3.2016, after signing the job card No.246 on 11.3.2016. It clearly shows and proves that the tractor is fully functional and quite obviously exposes the complainant’s spiteful intentions.
15. It is denied that right from the beginning tractor started giving trouble as revealed by the complainant.
16. It is further mentioned that bare perusal of job card no.136 dated 19.4.2015 shows that clutch was changed. Even this clutch was changed since the complainant had not been servicing the tractor and not using the clutch properly when there is regular/routine maintenance. It was found that the clutch plates were damaged badly since the complainant had not used the system properly. There was no complaint received from the complainant with regard to the problem in clutch system, lift control, staring being hard.
17. It is also mentioned that the complainant has removed the company fitted steering wheel and fitted steering wheel of local brand. It was detected  while inspecting the tractor by the service centre employees of OPs No.1&2 .When the company again fitted the original/branded  steering wheel in the vehicle it started working smoothly and did not give any problem.The complainant has refused to get the branded/company fitted wheel. He is at fault. He has no locus standi to file such a bald and vexatious complaint when he is at fault.
18. It is also alleged that the complainant had not maintained the vehicle in proper way and has used local company made/in-genuine engine  filter which is capable of giving various problem in future. All the other averments of the complainant are denied.In the end OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
19. OP No.3 in its separate reply also raised legal objections similar to the objections raised by OPs No.1&2.
20. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has purchased the tractor on 12.10.2014 and not on 21.10.2014. In further version, OP No.3 has in substance supported the version of OPs No.1&2 and denied all the averments of the complainant. In the end prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.      
21. In support of his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Ashok Kumar, Ex.CA, copy of special power of attorney,Ex.C1,copy of invoice dated 21.10.2014,Ex.C2, copy of report dated 12.8.2016,Ex.C3, copy of legal notice,Ex.C4, postal receipts, Exs.C5 to C7, copy of RC, Ex.C8 and owner’s service manual,Ex.C9.
22. OPs No.1&2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Harpreet Singh, Ex.OPA,copy of authority letter, Ex.OP1, copy of job card No.246 ,Ex.OP2, copy of Job card No.136,Ex.OP3, copy of photographs,Exs.OP4 to OP7, copy of reply to legal notice, Ex.OP8, copy of postal receipt,Ex.OP9.
23. OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sukhdev Singh, Ex.OPB and copy of training certificate,Ex.OP10.
24. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.      
25. The ld. counsel for the parties have reiterated their stand as setup in their respective pleadings.
26. Admittedly the complainant has purchased the tractor from OP No.3 which is manufactured by OPs No.1&2.The tractor was purchased on 21.10.2014.
27. It is alleged that right from the very beginning  the tractor started giving trouble. The clutch was hard, gear was not in working order and it gave loud noise     at the time of shifting gear and the pickup was also not good.
28. It is well settled that the complainant has to prove his case by affirmative evidence.
29. Of course, the complainant has produced on record as many as 9 documents. It is to be seen whether from these documents, the case of the complainant stands proved.
30.  Ex.CA is the affidavit of Ashok Kumar, attorney of the complainant. Complainant has himself not tendered his affidavit. 

It is well settled that statement of attorney cannot be treated as statement of the party(complainant). As such it is to be held that the complainant has not supported his averments by way of affidavit.

31.    Ex.C1 is special power of attorney. Ex.C2 is the invoice .It can prove only purchase of the tractor.Ex.C4 is copy of legal notices, Exs.C5 to C7 are postal receipts. These documents are not going to prove the case of the complainant, Ex.C8 is RC and Ex.C9 is the service manual. These documents also have no relevancy to prove any defect in the vehicle.
32. Ex.C3 is the copy of the report. This document is material from the view point of the complainant. It is to be seen whether this document goes to help the case of the complainant or not.

It is dated 12.8.2016 i.e. afterabout two years from the date of the purchase of the tractor.

It is simply mentioned that lifter does not properly control. There is sound at gear shifting. There is shortage in steering. There is sound in backside .Smoke from the engine. Clutch is hard and is used to slip on load.

The qualification of the person issued this report is not mentioned. Moreover this report is after a period of two years from the date of purchase.

33.   OPs have pleaded in the written version, that the complainant has changed the steering at its own level. The OP has also placed on record photographs to corroborate this version.
34. Complainant himself has not tendered any affidavit. Ashok Kumar, attorney in his affidavit, Ex.CA has also no where  denied this fact.Therefore, the defects complained by the complainant can be due to change of the steering also.
35. OPs have placed on record job cards, Exs.OP2     and OP 3 but there was no complaint by the complainant at the time of getting service.
36. Therefore, the conclusion is that the complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect as alleged. As such no deficiency can be attributed on the part of the OPs. Complaint is without merit and stands dismissed.
37.  Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:22.11.2019     

 B.S.Dhaliwal                         Inderjeet Kaur              M. P. Singh Pahwa

       Member                                 Member                                      President