2

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BATHINDA



                    1. CC. No. 191 of 15-07-2008
                      Decided on : 19-03-2009




  1. Jagdev Singh S /o Sh. Mohinder Singh, R/o Village Chathewal, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo District Bathinda.
  2. Nardev Singh S/o Mohinder Singh, R/o Village Chathewala, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda. ... Complainants

Versus



  1. M/s. Punjab Tractors Limited through its Managing Director-cum-C.E.O. Head office Phase -IV, Industrial Area, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar (Mohali) Punjab.
  2. M/s. Green Farm Service, Authorised Dealers Swaraj Tractors & Swaraj Genuine Parts, through its Manager, G.T. Road, Rampura Phul.

... Opposite parties


Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

  1. Act, 1986.

QUORUM


Sh. Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President
Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member
Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

Present : Sh. Jatinder Singh, Advocate, counsel for the complainants
Sh. Mohan Lal Garg, Advocate, counsel for the opposite parties

O R D E R


SH. PRITAM SINGH DHANOA, PRESIDENT



  1. This complaint has been filed by Sh. Jagdev Singh and his brother Nardev Singh, sons of Mohinder Singh, resident of Village Chathewala, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act') against M/s. Punjab Tractors Limited, Mohali through its Managing Director and M/s. Green Farm Service through its Manager, authorised dealer carrying out his business at Rampura Phul, in District Bathinda. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is as under;-
  2. That initially Mohinder Singh father of the complainant had purchased tractor Swaraj 855 BX 55HP SAE bearing Chasis No. QSCD 61605403054 and Engine No. 7.1402/SKD0513 of red colour for a consideration of Rs. 4,21,000/-. At the time of purchase of the said tractor, father of the complainants told the authorised representative of opposite party No. 2 that tractor is needed by him for operation of implements like Reaper, Tubewell, Hadamba and Harvestors. In response assurance was given by opposite party No. 2 that tractor shall become compatible with his requirements. After purchase thereof, father of the complainants came to know that PTO. shaft is of 1000 RPM and it has failed to give desired results. However, opposite party No. 2 agreed to replace the same with a tractor to meet the requirement and supplied new tractor with same specification. Thereafter complainants purchased 855 RX 55 HP SAE Swaraj tractor bearing chasis No. QSCE61617113702 and Engine No. 47.1407/KD000117 of red colour, alongwith accessories on 31-7-2007 in their names from the opposite parties for a consideration of Rs. 4,03,500/-. The opposite parties issued retail invoice and sale certificate and gave a warranty for proper functioning of said tractor for a period of one year. Even thereafter the said tractor did not meet the requirements of the complainants because its PTO shaft was of 1000 RPM and 6 splines , as such, tractor is useless for them. On being informed that there is manufacturing defect in the tractor because its PTO shaft is shown of 540 RPM and 6 splines. They brought the said manufacturing defect to the notice of the opposite parties during warranty period, but they failed to replace the tractor. Hence this complaint for issuing direction to the opposite parties for replacement of tractor of requisite specification or in the alternative refund of price of tractor paid in the sum of Rs. 4,03,500/- and for payment of Rs. 10,000/- spent by the complainants on its registration and to award compensation in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- for deficiency in service and equal amount on account of physical and mental harassment and another sum of Rs. 11,000/- on account of costs.
  3. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed written version resisting the complaint taking preliminary objections; that tractor supplied to the complainant did not posses any manufacturing defect and they have never made any complaint at the time during free services rendered by opposite party No. 2 on 02-11-2007 and 12-04-2008; that complainants have not approached this Forum with clean hands because they changed the sticker of tractor purchased by them from the opposite parties from 1000 PTO to 540 PTO with malafide intention; that complaint being false and vexatious, is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, the factum of purchase of tractor by the complainants from the opposite parties on 31-07-2007 is not disputed, but it is submitted that earlier tractor supplied to their father Mahinder Singh possessed no defect but on his request for replacement thereof with the tractor of larger size of tyres, new tractor was supplied in the name of the complainants in lieu thereof as a matter of goodwill gesture. It is submitted that machinery of both the tractors of 540 RPM and 1000 RPM is the same and both the categories are suitable for operation of Tubewll, Reaper, Hadamba and Harvestors. It is also contended that complainant had been using tractor supplied to them by the opposite parties for a period of one year before filing of instant complaint and shaft thereof can be changed at any time, if so they desire although shaft of both the categories can be used in the tractor supplied to the complainants. It is denied that complainants ever reported any manufacturing defect in the tractor supplied to them. Rather it is submitted that on specific request of their father Mohinder Singh, opposite party No. 2, supplied them tractor with shaft of 1000 RPM after he selected the same from the tractors standing in the show room of opposite party No. 2. Rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the same with costs.
  4. On being called upon, by this Forum, to do so, learned counsel for the complainants furnished affidavits of Nardev Singh, complainant No. 2 and one Mander Singh, mechanic Ex. C-1 and Ex. C-6, respectively and copies of documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-5 and Ex. C-7 to Ex. C-11, including photograph of shaft of their tractor, before he closed their evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Surinder Gupta, Proprietor of opposite party No. 2, Ex. R-1, specimen of stickers and photocopy of job cards and application by the father of complainants for issuance of tractor Ex. R-2 to Ex. R-6 and closed their evidence.
  5. We have heard, the learned counsel for the parties and perused the oral and documentary evidence and written submissions adduced on record, by the parties, carefully, with their kind assistance.
  6. At the outset, learned counsel for the complainants Sh. Jatinder Singh, Advocate, has submitted that the opposite parties had replaced the earlier tractor sold to the father of the complainants because of mechanical manufacturing defect and issued the tractor in question in their name of 1000 RPM fitted with shaft of 6 splines instead of 21 splines which is a manufacturing defect and could not be removed during free services rendered by them. Learned counsel has urged that due to said manufacturing defect in the tractor sold to the complainants by the opposite parties, they are not in a position to operate their agricultural implements like Reaper, Tubewell and Hadamba and Harvestors etc., as such tractor of the complainant needs replacement or in the alternative, the opposite parties be directed to pay cost thereof alongwith compensation on account of mental harassment and financial loss suffered by the complainants and costs incurred for filing of instant complaint.
  7. On the other hand, Sh. M L Garg. Advocate, learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that tractor to the complainants has been supplied after replacement of previous tractor purchased by their father on his specific request and in goodwill gesture and both the shafts bearing 6 splines and 21 splines can be fitted in the tractors of 540 RPM and 1000 RPM, as such, there is no manufacturing defect on account of which direction be given to the opposite parties to replace the tractor issued in the name of the complainants or to refund cost thereof and payment of compensation or costs.
  8. As per the admitted facts borne on record. Sh. Mohinder Singh, father of the complainants had earlier purchased a tractor from the opposite parties for a consideration of Rs. 4,21,000/- bearing chasis No. QSCD 61605403054 and Engine No. 47.1402/SKD0513 and on being approached by him, the opposite party No. 2 issued the tractor in question of his choice in the name of the complainants bearing Chasis No. QSCE61617113702 and Engine No. 47.1407/KD000117 as replacement. The opposite parties have produced on record the copy of writing Ex. R-6 dated 16-08-2007, executed by Sh. Mahinder Singh, father of the complainants bearing his request that in place of tractor purchased by him, tractor of 1000 RPM be supplied because tyres of earlier tractor are of small size and he himself selected tractor issued in the name of complainant with larger size of tyres from the tractors standing in the show room of opposite party No. 2 with shaft of 1000 RPM bearing more splines then the earlier tractor. The complainant No.2, Nardev Singh in his affidavit Ex. C-1 has not denied the execution of above said writing by his father. It is also not the case of the complainants that the signatures of their father were secured on blank papers and said writing was forged by opposite party No. 2 or its employees. As such, complainant cannot wriggle out of the said document which has not been disowned by them. The opposite parties have also produced on record specimens of stickers of both the categories of tractors i.e. 1000 PTO. and 540 PTO. which do not tally with the stickers pasted on photograph Ex. C-7, brought on record by the complainants. In view of the contents of writing Ex. R-6, there is substance in the plea of the opposite parties that complainants have removed sticker from 1000 RPM from tractor supplied to them and replaced the same with the sticker of 540 RPM. However, it is not the case of even of the opposite parties that photograph Ex. C-7 is of some other tractor or that shaft of another tractor has also been inserted by the complainant. A bare look on the shaft shown in the photograph Ex. C-7 goes to show that it bears 6 splines whereas as per contents of writing Ex. R-6, father of the complainants has opted for the tractor in question inplace of previous tractor supplied to him by the opposite parties because with bigger size of tyres and more splines. Even Mander Singh, a mechanic has submitted his affidavit Ex. C-6, on behalf of complainants to the effect that, after inspection of their tractor, he has come to the conclusion that tractor supplied to them is of 1000 RPM but bears 6 splines. The complainants have also tendered in evidence the copy of specification chart Ex. C-4, issued by the opposite parties. As mentioned in the said document, tractor of 1000 RPM shall bears 21 splines whereas tractor of 540 shall bears 6 splines. Therefore, we are unable to accede to the plea of the opposite parties that tractor of 1000 RPM and 540 RPM fitted with 21 and 6 splines is suitable for operation of all agricultural implements. As such shaft with 6 Splines fitted with tractor of 1000 RPM, is certainly a manufacturing defect and the same is curable if the shaft therein is replaced with shaft of correct specification i.e. of 21 Splines.






  1. However, neither any manufacturing defect has been pointed out by the complainants in the complaint nor has been reported by them to the opposite parties at the time of rendering of free services after the date of purchase of the tractor. Therefore, in our opinion, it is not a fit case for replacement of any part of the tractor except shaft thereof. Since the opposite parties have expressed their willingness to change the shaft of the tractor purchased by the complainants as per its RPM, therefore, no ground is made out for giving them direction for replacement of entire tractor or for refund of the amount spent by the complainants for purchase of the tractor or for payment of registration thereof. This Forum has been conferred power to compensate aggrieved complainant for the defects in the goods or deficiency in services and not actual or remote loss suffered by the consumer. However, as the complainants have been put to inconvenience due to mechanical defect pointed out above, and had been deprived of the use of tractor for agricultural purposes, therefore, we are of the opinion that they must be suitably compensated by the opposite parties alongwith costs of filing of the complaint.
  2. For the aforesaid reasons, we partly accept the complaint and direct the opposite parties to change the shaft of the tractor purchased by the complainant compatible to its RPM and to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on account of compensation and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- on account of costs, to the complainant in equal shares, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.


  1. The copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of costs as per rules, on the subject.


  1. File be indexed and consigned.

Pronounced :
19-03-2009 (Pritam Singh Dhanoa)
President




(Dr. Phulinder Preet)
Member

  1. (Amarjeet Paul)

Member