Karnataka

Kolar

CC/130/2023

K.Gopal - Complainant(s)

Versus

VST.Tillers Tractors Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M.Prasanna Kumar

22 Jan 2024

ORDER

Date of Filing: 03/10/2023

Date of Order: 22/01/2024

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR – 563 101.

Dated:22^nd DAY OF JANUARY 2024

SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SMT. SAVITHA AIRANI, B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO:130/2023

Sri. K. Gopal,

S/o Krishnappa,

Aged about 47 years,

R/at Mustarahalli Village,

Donimodugu Post,

Bangarpet Taluk.

(Rep. by Sri. M. Prasanna Kumar, Advocate)   ….  Complainant.

 

                                                                                                                - V/s –

1. VST Tillers Tractors Limited,

Plot No.1, Devasandra Industrial Layout, White Field Road,

Mahadevapura Post,

Bangalore-560 048.

(Rep. by Sri. B.V. Savinay, Advocate)

 

2. Sri. Chowdeshwari Traders,

No.159, 4^th Main, 2^nd cross,

Mines & Geology Road,

Sriganddadakaval,

Nagarabhavi,

2^nd Stage, Bangalore-560072.

(Ex-parte )

 

3. Sri Chowdeshwari Traders,

Bangalore-Chennai High Way,

Near Chokka Conventional Hall,

Kolar-563101.

(Rep. by Sri. M. Lokesh Murthy, Advocate )…..   Opposite Parties.   

                                                                    

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, PRESIDENT

1. That the complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the Opposite Parties alleging manufacturing defects in the tractor and hence pray to refund the entire amount paid towards the purchase of the Tractor VST932 and Rotar on 20-09-2021.

 

2. The brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant was offered by the OP.No.3 to the complainant in order to purchase the tractor, accordingly complainant was purchased the Tractor VST932 and Rotary on             20-09-2021.  It is the allegation of the complainant that, after purchasing the above said Tractor, when he was reached to home he found that, there was an oil leakage in the newly purchased tractor and same was intimated to the OP.No.3 immediately and OP.No.3 promised the complainant to rectify the defects but the OP. No.3 not rectified the defects.

 

3. Further the complainant stated that since day one of the purchase of the said Tractor complainant had faced the following several problems:

1. Oil leakage in the bottom of the vehicle,
2. Leakage in the PTO problem
3. Leakage in the front axle.
4. TPL Bend
5. Hydraulic problem,
6. self start problem
7. Electric problem
8. Power steering problem
9. Chain problem
10. Front wheel seal,
11. tired end
12. Grospin
13. Back wheel oil leak problem
14. Leakage in housing
15. 15 Start Problem
16. Mileage problem
17. Clutch problem

Rotavatory problem and much problem occurred again and again and stated that, he was spent half of the vehicle value to rectify the said problems.

4. It is stated that, though complainant was informed about the said problems to the Ops but they have not taken any care about the complaints and due to mechanical defects complainant suffered lot of mental agony as well as financial problems since the date of purchase.  Further states that, due to above said problems of tractor complainant approached several times to the Ops asked for the refund of the amount or to rectify the problems but Ops were did not care and sole him the defective tractor.  Finally complainant got issued the legal notice, though notice served to Op No.1 and 3 but the Ops did not comply the demand made in the notice.   Hence this complaint.

 

5. Upon admission of complaint and on issuance of notice to the Op.No.1to3 and Op.No.2 remained absent, consequently Op.No.2 placed exparte, whereas Op.No.1 & 3 appeared through their counsel filed their version.

 

6. In the version of the OP.No.1 it is contended that, the allegations made in the complainant are denied as false. Further Op No. 1 contended that, they advised the complainant to drive the tractor as per the instructions given by them to avoid some reported problems by the complainant. It is contended that, the complainant was driving the tractor rashly and was following recklessness method of driving leading to problems as stated in the complaint. It is contended that Ops were not sold any defective vehicle to the complainant and at the time of purchase the vehicle is in good condition and only after thorough investigation of the tractor and after that only delivered to the complainant and hence contended that there was no manufacturing defects but the problems occurred due to operational defect or due to rash and negligent method of maintenance of the said vehicle.  Further contended that the complainant had bad driving skills and he was driving the tractor rashly, negligently, recklessly and hand no knowledge of operating the tractor on the day of delivery and on the same day the Op.No. 2 and 3 waned and suggested the complainant to handle it smoothly as the engine and other parts as stated above are very delicate in condition till time of normal use. It is contended that the date of purchase was 20-08-2021 and the tractor was bought to service on 02-12-2021 for general check up with minor defects and the said defects was cleared by the Op No.1 under surveillance of service engine, later tractor was brought to service on 26-08-2022 for general service and no defect were found in 02-12-2021 and 26-08-2022 and almost concludes one year period of purchase of the said tractor.  Hence contended that there was manufacturing defect and the problems arose only because of Operational problems and lack of driving skills. Finally Op No.1 based on above grounds pray to dismiss the complainant.

 

7. In the version of OP.No.3 it is contended that, the complaint is not maintainable both in law and on facts and the complaint not comes to this commission with clean hands and filed the present complaint by suppressing the several material facts.  That the allegation of the complainant about the problems narrated in the complaint is denied as false and require the complainant put to strict proof those allegation made in the complaint. It is contended that the complainant himself approached the Ops to purchase the Tractor and contended that the Ops attended the oil leakage problem and rectified it and hence contended that complainant has locusstandi to allege that, this complaint has not been attended till today. Further contended that, there problems shown in the complaint due to which complainant spent half of the value of the tractor are denied as false and incorrect.  Further submitted that, the OP.No.3 being the dealer who attended to all the problems that they have been intimated to them and not charged a single rupee for the services covered under the warranty but the complainant only made payments towards the item which were not covered under the warranty. Further contended that the OP.No.3 being the service provider and asked the manufacturer the problems mentioned in the complaint any due to manufacturing defect and the Op No.1 confirmed that it is not the manufacturer defect and it is Operational defect and hence complainant vehicle during warranty period carried out all the repairs and maintenance of the vehicle without charging a single rupee to the complainant. Further the OP.No.3 submitted that they have replaced certain important spare parts like, Retro Fitment etc., and accordingly the same replaced and all the defects and problems reported by the complainant were attended to without fail. Hence contended that the complainant has no moral rights to question the works carried out by the Opponent.  Further this Op admitted the issuance of notice only and other and contended rest of the allegations of notice not in the knowledge of the OP.No.3. Further contended that this OP.No.3 attended all the problems reported by the complainant and hence not responded to the legal notice.

 

8. It is contended that since the date of purchase that complainant was used the tractor for several months and for the first time on 26-10-2021 the complainant complained that, there was Oil leakage and such other minor repairs and immediately thereafter, Op.No.3 attended to all the defects and repairs communicated to him without charging single rupee for the repairs arrived out and the spare parts replaced, as the vehicle was under warranty.  However OP.No.3 charged for the spares and repairs which are not covered under the warranty and the warranty period for the vehicle was two years from the date of purchase.

 

9. Further contended that, complainant came for the second time on 01-03-2022 and 02-07-2022 for the service and at that point of time too, he complained certain problems and same were attended without charging anything to the complainant and spare parts which are under the warranty.  Further the complainant again on    10-08-2022 and on the said date the repairs like Diesel Filter, Fine Filter (Hydraulic), suction filter and Gear oil and OIB oils were attended to without charging any charges towards the services.  Further complainant came to the service again on 20-12-2022 for service and that point, the vehicle was serviced completely and changed Engine oil, oil filter and Rotary Blades. Further complainant came to service on 07-02-2023 and that time again the problems like gear oil grease, front axle cassette, seal oil front, oaring bearing etc., were attended by this opponent and after the service, the vehicle was delivered to the complainant and thereafter no problems were reported till he sent the legal notice dated 12-04-2023 and hence it is contended that,  thus there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle but ultimately contended that all the above problems occurred  in the vehicle due to Operational Problems.  Hence contended that there was no deficiency in service committed by the Ops.  Finally on the above said grounds OP.No.3 prays to dismiss the complaint.

 

10. In order to prove the case of the parties and both parties filed their affidavit evidence and documentary evidence.

 

11. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following points will do arise for our consideration.

 

1. Whether complaint proves that there is deficiency in service committed by the Op No. 1 to 3 in selling the manufacturing defective Tractor bearing No. 1 to 3 to the complainant?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint?
3. What Order?

 

We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the evidence placed on record.

Our answers to the above points as under:

 

Point No.(1)& (2):-   In the Negative

 

Point No.(3):-          As per the final orders

                              for the following

 

                            REASONS

 

12. Point No.(1) & (2):-  On perusal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence placed on record and we are of the opinion that these two points are interlinked to each other and in order to avoid repetition of discussion of facts and for the sake brevity these points will taken up together for common discussion.

 

13. It is the specific allegation of the complainant is that, on 20/09/2021 was purchased the Tractor and the day one the complainant placed many problems in the tractor as narrated in his complaint.  In order to substantiate his case and the complainant filed his affidavit evidence.  Further on perusal of the affidavit evidence complainant and the complainant deposed the facts as averred in his pleadings and mainly alleged that regarding the problems of the said tractor since date of purchase such as:

 

1. Oil leakage in the bottom of the vehicle,
2. Leakage in the PTO problem
3. Leakage in the front axle.
4. TPL Bend
5. Hydraulic problem,
6. self start problem
7. Electric problem
8. Power steering problem
9. Chain problem
10. Front wheel seal,
11. tired end
12. Grospin
13. Back wheel oil leak problem
14. Leakage in housing
15. 15 Start Problem
16. Mileage problem
17. Clutch problem

 

14. In support of the case of the complainant and the complainant filed purchased invoice it reveals that, complainant had purchased the tractor for Rs.6,05,920/- and mini rotavator for Rs.69,490/- on 20-09-2021.  Further  complainant also produce delivery note dated: 10/08/2022  the subject vehicle given for service and it discloses that on the above said date OPs given service by changing diesel filter, fine filter, suction filter, oil one liter, oil 10 liter and gear oil, further for service on 20/12/2022 as per the delivery note: engine oil, Oil filter, Rotary Blades were given service by the OP and so also serviced on 01/03/2022 Engine oil 5 liter, engine oil 1 liter, oil filter, petrol, oil seal were changed, further as per the delivery note dated: 07/12/2023 on the said day of service wherein which complainant got changed the: gear oil 140, Grease, Front Axle Casette, seal oil front, petrol, leabur, Oring bearing, taper bearing, Axel shaft front, pinion set, UV joint assy, tie rod connector, diesel filter were changed at free of service from the OP.No.3.

 

15. Further on perusal of 02/07/2022 it discloses that, again pinion bevel gear 10T, gear bevel, Pest & Tread locker, Petrol and the said tractor serviced at the free of cost and the complainant get repaired all those items according to his amount mentioned to his bill.  Finally on perusal of delivery challan it should be OP.No.3 dated 26/10/2021 it discloses that, VST Engine oil 5 liter, VST engine oil 1 liter, VST Diesel filter, Petrol and total expenditure incurred by the complainant.  Further complainant produced service check sheets all these service sheets discloses that, complainant on 26/08/2022, complainant given the subject vehicle for general service, on 23/02/2023 given his vehicle for clutch, diesel mileage, oil leakage, on 12/09/2022 vehicle was given for repair: front axel oil, 4 wheel joint bearing, break light not working, bonnet lock not working etc., front axel charsises 5 MM curling.  Finally on perusal of 31/10/2021 service sheet, it discloses that, with the complaints like: top gear oil seal, horning dummy plug, PTO main shaft, clutch having change, main shaft oil, break full sencic.  On perusal of all the service sheets no where it has been shown the electric problem, power steering problem, tire dent grasping, rotavatary problem.

Per contra, OP by denying the allegations of the complainant strongly contended in his version that, they have not given any defective manufacturing vehicle to the complainant and contended that, the OP.No.3 on each and every occasion, when the subject vehicle given for service or repair as per the problems reported by the complainant and all the time OP.No.3 being a dealer and service provider given the service without taking single rupee from the complainant but they charged for the parts only which are not covered under the warranty.  Further contended that, they carried out all the repairs and maintenance of the vehicle and replaced the parts like Retro fitment etc, and all problems were attended and the problem shown by the complainant is due to operational problems. 

16. It is worth to note that; complainant not whispered anything regarding the operational problems.  Further on perusal of the service sheets of different dates and the bills of different dates produced by the complainant in support of his case made us to draw inference that, whenever the vehicle was used heavily for the work all those problems might have occurred.  Further it is note worthy to mention that, the reported problems whether due to the manufacturing defect only? and to ascertain the same, complainant failed to examine any expert in the field.

 

17. That the OPs side they also produced the pre-delivery inspection form in respect of the vehicle in question and it discloses that on the date of purchase i.e on 20/02/2021 the vehicle was inspected before delivery to the complainant and also issued installation training certificate.   Further the OP.No.3 as given check list showing that, what are all the customer as to examine and advised to take tractor manual.  Further it reveals that, the OP.No.3 under take to give free service within 30 days or 50 hours, 200 hrs or 90 days, 400 hrs or 180 days, 600 hrs or 270 days and finally 750 hrs or 360 days.  Further on perusal of the entire documents and documents placed before us, we found that, there is no iota of doubt regarding as promised free services given to the complainant.   On perusal of the service sheet produced by the both complainant and OP we reach to conclusion that, only against the usage of the vehicle such problems raised by the complainant may comes for such repairs.

 

18.   It is contended in the version of OP.No.1 due to complainant had bad driving skills and he was driving the tractor rashly, negligently, recklessly and had no knowledge of operating the tractor on the day of delivery and on the same day OP.No.2 & 3 warned and suggested the complainant to handle it smoothly as the engine or other parts are stated above very delicate in condition till the normal use of time but the complainant was negligent and not follow up with regular service and not rectified his operational problems, whereas complainant not deposed anything in his complaint about the operational problems which is the main issue in the case. Further in the complainant deposed anything about his driving skills. Above all, complainant failed to examine any expert to demonstrate that all the problems reported to the OPs is due to manufacturing defect.  In absence of the cogent evidence and expert evidence.  The complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP and thereon complainant is not entitled for any relief.  Accordingly we answered the Point No.(1) & (2) in the negative.
19. Point No. (3):- On the basis of the answering the points No. (1) and (2) and the reasons assigned thereon, we proceed to pass the following.

 

6698606.  

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.  No order as to cost.
2. Send a copy of this order to all the parties to the proceedings at free of cost.

 

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and  then pronounced by us on this 22^nd DAY OF JANUARY 2024)

 

 

   MEMBER                                PRESIDENT