Haryana

StateCommission

A/606/2014

Escorts Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Umeed Singh - Opp.Party(s)

A K Bishnu

24 Feb 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.606 of 2014

Date of the Institution: 15.07.2014

Date of Decision: 24.02.2016

 

Escorts Ltd. Corporate Centre at 15/5 Mathura Road, Faridabad, 121003, Haryana through its General Manager Prabhat Kumar.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1.      Umed Singh S/o Amar Singh, R/o Vill. Bidhwan,Tehsil Siwani, Distt. Bhiwani.

2.      Vikas Trading Company, (Dealer Farm Track Tractors Spare Parts & Agriculture Immipimantas) Auto Market, Loharu Road, Bhiwani, through its owner.

3.      PLFA Bank Sewani,Tehsil Sewani, District Bhiwani through its Manager.

                                                                             .….Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Dr.A.K.Bishnoi, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                   None for the respondent No.1.

                   Mr.A.K.Gehlwat, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.2.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

It is alleged by the complainant that he purchased Farmtack Model Tractor from  (Opposite Party) O.P.No.1- for Rs.5,50,000/-  after availing the loan facility from O.P.No.3.  After some time, defect occurred in the gear box and clutch of the tractor. Information was given to O.P.No.1 regarding the defect.  O.P.No.1 called Mr.Sachin Rana Service Manager, who reported that iron nut bolts were left in the gearbox.  He requested the O.Ps. to replace the tractor, but, O.P.No.1 returned the tractor after minor repairs.  On 10.11.2009 the tractor was again taken to agency, but, O.Ps. refused to repair the tractor on the ground that warranty period had already been lapsed. The O.Ps. be directed to replace the tractor alongwith compensation for loss of crops and harassment.

2.      O.Ps. filed separate reply.  O.P.No.1 submitted that he availed the services many times and first time the tractor brought on 06.03.2009 after running of about 350 hours. The tractor was examined by the mechanic. Last service of the tractor was done on 03.11.2009 after running for about 1100 hours. There ws no defect in the tractor and minor wear and tear due to use were looked into the satisfaction of complainant.

3.      O.P.No.2 submitted that  tractor was delivered to the complainant after completing all the formalities of pre delivery and they was no manufacturing defect.

4.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redresal Forum, Bhiwani (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 05.06.2014 and directed as under:-

“1.     To replace the gearbox with new one with fresh  guarantee.

2.      To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the loss of   crops and harassment.

          3.      To pay Rs.2200/- as litigation charges.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom O.P.No.2-appellant has preferred this appeal.

6.      None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 since 11 months  though present on some dates, so the arguments were heard in his absence as the matter is pending since 2014.

7.      Arguments heard. File perused.

8.      Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 argued that complainant brought tractor for first time on 06.03.2009 after running of about 350 hours.  The clutch was not working properly and the tractor was examined by the mechanic.

9.      Learned counsel for the appellant argued that Umed Singh-complainant purchased  tractor from O.P.No.1 on 15^th November, 2008. On 06.03.2009, complainant brought the tractor to O.P.No.1 for service after running 350 hours.  It was found that clutch was not working properly and clutch plate linings were worn off and on the request of complainant, same was replaced as mentioned in job card OP 2/B.  The complete pressure plate, cover clutch Assay and Main Drive Clutch Plate were changed to the satisfaction of the complainant. The job card OP 2/C was duly signed by the son of complainant on 10^th June, 2009.  Again, the tractor was brought for service after running 600 hours.  There was no complaint by the complainant about gear box and no defect was found, as mentioned in the job card.  On 1^st September, 2009, it was found by the mechanic that cluster assembly of the tractor was not working and the same was also replaced alongwith the wiring harness and break switch mentioned in the job card OP 2/D. The job card was duly signed by the son of the complainant. At that time tractor was got serviced after running 1000 hours. The job card was duly signed by the son of the complainant.

10.    As per this evidence defect in the gear box was never brought to the notice of the appellant or it’s authorized dealer.  There is no evidence or report about defect in gear box.   So, question of changing gear box, as directed by the District forum, was not warranted.  Hence, impugned order dated 05.06.2014 is set aside.  Appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.11,100/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

February 24th, 2016           Urvashi Agnihotri                           R.K.Bishnoi,                                                                       Member                                             Judicial Member                                                     Addl. Bench                                                Addl.Bench             

S.K.