Haryana

Sonipat

CC/301/2015

Sumit Kumar S/o Jai Karan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vijay Agro Engineering Works - Opp.Party(s)

J.S. SAINI

13 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

                     SONEPAT.

 

                             Complaint No.301 of 2015

                             Instituted on:21.08.2015

                             Date of order:13.06.2016

 

Sumit Kumar son of Jai Karan, resident of village Kilohard, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

                                      ...Complainant.

 

                      Versus

 

 

1.Vijay Agro Engineering Works, Gurudwara road, Sonepat through its Manager/Prop.

2.Mahindra & Mahindra Farm Divn. Akurli, road, Kandivali (East) Mumbai-400101 (service be effected through authorized agent respondent no.1).

3.Magma Fincorp Ltd. Magma House 24 Park Street, Calcutta through its Managing Director (service be effected through its branch office no.204, 2^nd Floor Pawan Mega Mall, Sonepat).

4.Magma HDI General Ins. Co. Ltd., Magma House 24 Park Street, Calcutta through its Managing Director (service be effected through its branch office no.204, 2^nd Floor Pawan Mega Mall, Sonepat).

 

                                      ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. JS Saini, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. DS Malik, Adv. for respondent no.1.

           Sh. JD Sharma, Adv. for respondent no.2.

           Sh. Ashish Garg, Adv.for respondent no.3.

           Sh. HC Jain, Adv. for respondent no.4.

 

BEFORE-    Nagender Singh, PRESIDENT.

          Prabha Wati, MEMBER.

      

 

O R D E R

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has purchased one tractor for agricultural purposes in the month of November, 2014 for Rs.7,30,000/- from respondent no.1.  The complainant has made the payment of Rs.2,30,000/- at the time of purchase of the tractor to respondent no.1 and the remaining amount was got financed by the complainant from the respondent no.3.  The tractor was manufactured by respondent no.2 with warranty for a period of 12 months or 1000 hours of operation.  But after use, it was found that the tractor is not working satisfactorily and he approached the respondent no.1 time and again for rectification of the fault i.e. defective battery and lift. However, fault of the lift was removed and the complainant was asked to use the battery as long as possible.  Again the complainant approached the respondent no.1 on 23.12.2014 with complaint of not taking the load by the tractor. On third service conducted on 1.6.2015, the gear box and shelf of the tractor was repaired.  The tractor was taken to the respondent no.1 on 25.3.2015 when lift was readjusted.  On 17.4.2015, the driver seat was replaced as it was found defective. On 21.5.2015, the engine of the tractor was found defective. All four pistons of the engine including replacing other accessories like ring, sleeve, seals etc. but the tractor despite these repair did not work properly.    Even the engine of the tractor was reopened and one of the piston was found crack.  The Engineers of the respondent no.1 has observed the working of the tractor and they told the complainant that the tractor is taking extra diesel.   The tractor is within warranty peri9od and the defects have not been removed till now. The tractor is having manufacturing defect and due to the same, the defects cannot be removed.  The complainant has requested the respondents many a times to replace the defective tractor with new one, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondents appeared and they filed their separate written statement.

         The respondent no.1 in its written statement has submitted that on 17.4.2015, the driver seat was replaced as the same was broken due to commercial use of the tractor.  On 21.5.2015, the engine repairing kit was replaced.  On 1.6.2015, head value of the tractor was replaced and the air cleaning system which was altered by the complainant was reset as per company’s norm.  The tractor was working properly.  The respondent no.1 has sent the fuel injection pump to its dealer who has rejected the same because of the reasons diesel adulteration and the same was sent to Bosch Karnal from where it was overhauled by its dealer on payment made by the respondent no.2.  The battery of Exide was replaced with new battery on the request of the complainant. On 29.7.2015, the tractor of the complainant have already run 996 hours. The tractor is not having any manufacturing defect. The allegations leveled by the complainant against the respondent no.1 is wrong and false since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1.

         The respondent no.2 in its written statement has submitted that the respondent no.2 has no responsibility or accountability in any manner.  There is no privity of contract between the complainant and respondent no.2.  The complainant has not plied the tractor as per terms and conditions mentioned in the manual.  Also in contravention of the rules the repair work was done several times in the workshop as and when the complainant has approached the workshop.   The complainant has got fitted the local extra filter and there was foreign material inside the cleaner which came in between the valve & head assy and got head value damaged.  The local air cleaner sealing was not proper and due to this, the engine took dust and got seized.  This amounts to complete negligence of the complainant.  As per preventive maintenance Hy.Oil needs to be replaced at 1000 hours which the complainant did not replace. Even Hyd. Filter has also not been replaced and that caused main spool value jam.  There was no manufacturing defect in the tractor and thus, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

         The respondent no.3 in its written statement has submitted that the loan agreement was executed by the complainant and loan of Rs.503728/- was sanctioned and disbursed to the complainant which was to be repaid  in 8 half yearly installments of Rs.one lac from 20.11.2014 to 19.11.2018.  The complainant has made continuous default in making the payment and as on 4.1.2016 an amount of Rs.453137/- is due and outstanding against the complainant.

         The respondent no.4 in its written statement has submitted that the present complaint is with regard to some manufacturing defect in the vehicle, risk of which is not covered under the insurance policy.

3.       We have heard learned counsel for both the  parties at length.  All the documents placed on record by both the parties have been perused carefully & minutely.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the respondents no.1 and 2 have supplied the defective tractor to the complainant. The said tractor is having manufacturing defects which are unrepairable and thus, the tractor needs to be replaced with new one by the respondents no.1 and 2.

         Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that on 17.4.2015, the driver seat was replaced as the same was broken due to commercial use of the tractor.  On 21.5.2015, the engine repairing kit was replaced.  On 1.6.2015, head value of the tractor was replaced and the air cleaning system which was altered by the complainant was reset as per company’s norm.  The tractor was working properly.  The respondent no.1 has sent the fuel injection pump to its dealer who has rejected the same because of the reasons diesel adulteration and the same was sent to Bosch Karnal from where it was overhauled by its dealer on payment made by the respondent no.2.  The battery of Exide was replaced with new battery on the request of the complainant. On 29.7.2015, the tractor of the complainant have already run 996 hours. The tractor is not having any manufacturing defect. The allegations leveled by the complainant against the respondent no.1 is wrong and false since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1.

         Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that the respondent no.2 has no responsibility or accountability in any manner.  There is no privity of contract between the complainant and respondent no.2.  The complainant has not plied the tractor as per terms and conditions mentioned in the manual.  Also in contravention of the rules the repair work was done several times in the workshop as and when the complainant has approached the workshop.   The complainant has got fitted the local extra filter and there was foreign material inside the cleaner which came in between the valve & head assy and got head value damaged.  The local air cleaner sealing was not proper and due to this, the engine took dust and got seized.  This amounts to complete negligence of the complainant.  As per preventive maintenance Hy.Oil needs to be replaced at 1000 hours which the complainant did not replace. Even Hyd. Filter has also not been replaced and that caused main spool value jam.  There was no manufacturing defect in the tractor.

5.       After hearing learned counsel for the complainant, respondent no.1 and 2 and after going through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully, we are of the view that there is manufacturing defect in the tractor in question.  The reply, affidavit and documents placed on record by the respondent no.1 clearly go to prove that the tractor was having manufacturing defects from the very beginning and that’s why some times the respondent no.1 has done the major work in the tractor.

         The tractor in question was purchased by the complainant in November, 2014 and from the date i.e. 11.11.2014, the complainant started complaining the respondent no.1 regarding poor working of the tractor and when all his requests with regard to replacement of the tractor with new one were ended into smoke, the complainant has to file the present complaint before this Forum on 21.8.2015 i.e. even within a period of nine months.

         We have perused the evidence led by the complainant very carefully and it is sufficient to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2.

         We have perused the document Annexure C-15 very carefully. As per this document, the tractor was taken into possession by the respondent no.1 on 29.7.2015 and at that time, the running hours of the tractor were 890. The document Annexure C16 shows the running hours of the tractor as 996.  Further as per document Annexure C18, the running hours of the tractor were 996. The tractor was returned to the complainant on 8.8.2016.  The running hours from 890 to 996 hours shows that the respondent no.1 has checked the tractor by running it for 106 hours particularly when the tractor was present in the workshop of the respondent no.1.

         We have also perused the job sheet of the tractor in question very carefully.  In job sheet Annexure C 10, the complainant has made a complaint with regard to seat defective, vide job sheet Annexure C11, the complainant has made a complaint with regard to lift not working and battery back poor, vide job sheet Annexure C12, the complainant has made a complaint with regard to valve, vide job sheet Annexure C13 & C14, the complainant has made a complaint with regard to clutch, lift not working, seals, pump noise problem.

         The perusal of all the above job sheets clearly proved that within a period of nine months i.e. from the date of its purchase till the filing of the present complaint, the complainant has suffered lot of complaints with the working of the tractor in question and the same were not removed due to manufacturing defect in the tractor. In our view, when the tractor was having manufacturing defect, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2 that the defective tractor should have been replaced at once with new one.  But the respondents no.1 and 2 have failed to do so and has left the complainant to do what he can and also forced the complainant to knock the doors of the Forum. In our view, there is force in the present complaint and definitely the tractor of the complainant needs to be replaced with new one particularly when there is no evidence on record to substantiate the allegation that the tractor was not handled properly by the complainant. Rather inherent mechanical defect in the vehicle proved.  The job cards itself further proves that there had been major defect in the vehicle and various parts of the tractor were replaced within seven/eight months of purchase of the tractor.  The observation of this Forum is fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, rendered in case titled as Terex Vectra Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mehar Chand, 2012(IV) CPJ page 87 wherein it has been held that “motor vehicle-manufacturing defect-Replacement sought- Distt. Forum allowed the complaint-Hence appeal-Distt. Forum rightly held that as per job card itself there had been major defect in the vehicle and replacement of parts were made not once but thrice within seven months of purchase of vehicle-No evidence on record to substantiate the allegation that the vehicle was not handled properly by complainant-Inherent mechanical defect in the vehicle proved”.

 

 

 Thus, we hereby direct the respondents no.1 and 2 to replace the defective tractor of the complainant with new one of the same model, same company and same capacity.  The complainant is hereby directed to return the defective tractor to the respondents no.1 and 2 enabling them for making the delivery of new tractor of the same model and capacity to the complainant.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed qua respondents no.1 and 2 since we find no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.3&4.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)                   (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF                         DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:13.06.2016