DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 22 of 22.1.2016

                                      Decided on:           18.2.2021

Sh.Gurdeep Singh s/o Sh.Amar Singh R/o village Thuha, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala (Punjab)

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. M/s Dangi Tractors, through its Prop. & Auth. Dealer:Sonalika Tractors & Spare Parts Opp. Bedi Diary, Kalka Road, Rajpura, District Patiala.
2. Incharge, Head Office, Sonalika International Tractors Ltd. village Chak Gujran, P.O. Piplanwala, Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur, Punjab PIN 146022
3. Sonalika International Tractors Ltd., through incharge Corporate Office; Pankaj Plaza-1,Plot No.2, Karkardooma Community Centre, Commercial Complex, New Delhi 110092.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Manpreet Singh Dhingra,counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Bhuvesh Tiwari, counsel for OP No.1.

                                      Sh.Amarjit Singh Sandhu, counsel for OPs No.2&3

ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Gurdeep Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against M/s Dangi Tractors and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s)

FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT

2. Brief facts of the complaint are that on 9.12.2014 the complainant purchased a tractor make Sonalika bearing engine No.3105EL43K461737F8, chassis No.CZIDE464963S3, for an amount of Rs.5,67,000/-, from OP No.1.  
3. It is averred that soon after the purchase of the said tractor, it started giving problems and was got inspected by the engineer of OP No.1 on 10.12.2014. It is further averred that for the first time the gear box of the tractor was opened by the engineers of the OPs and after service and other necessary repairs in gear box, the tractor was returned. Again it gave problem of lift(Jack system) and retained by service centre of OP No.1 on 3.4.2015 and after repair returned the tractor on the same date. However the problem with gear box and lift remained continued. On 24.8.2015 service of tractor was got done and he also pointed out the problem in the tractor but to no effect. A legal notice dated 24.11.2015 was got sent upon the OPs. Thereafter engineers of OPs took away the tractor at their workshop and replaced the gearbox and also repaired the lift system of the tractor but after that also the tractor is not performing well. There is thus deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs which caused mental agony, harassment and inconvenience to the complainant.
4. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to replace the tractor with new one or to return the price of the tractor of Rs.5,67,000/-; to pay Rs.1,00,000/-as compensation and also to pay Rs.11000/- as costs of litigation.

REPLY/WRITTEN STATEMENT

5. Upon notice OPs appeared through counsels and contested the complaint by filing written replies.
6. In the written reply filed by OP No.1, preliminary objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint; that Sonalika tractors are manufacture by OPs No.2&3 and OP No.1 is authorized dealer, who used to sell out the tractor in same condition as is received from OPs No.2&3.
7. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the tractor manufactured by OPs No.2&3.It is averred that the complainant has used the tractor smoothly for one year and gear box of the tractor was changed by OPs No.2&3 on the request of OP No.1 and thereafter no problem was ever arisen. It is admitted that tractor was brought for routine service for the first time on 3.4.2015.Again it was brought for service on 24.8.2015 when problem of gear box was pointed out for the first time and the same was rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant. However, on receipt of legal notice, engineer was appointed by OPs No.2&3 but no problem was found in the tractor. However, as a goodwill gesture and to the satisfaction of the complainant gear box was changed and the tractor was taken by the complainant in perfect good working condition. There is thus no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.After denying all other averments the OP No.1 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
8. In the reply filed by OPs No.2&3, they have also raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as the tractor in question is used for commercial purpose; that the Forum has no jurisdiction; that the grievance of the complainant is mainly against OP No.1,so the complaint against OPs No.2&3 is liable to be dismissed; that the relationship of OPs No.2&3 between its dealers is on principal to principal basis, therefore the company is not in any way liable towards the customers of the dealers. However, during the warranty there is any manufacturing defect in any part of the tractor, the company will replace that part of the tractor through its dealer and that the complaint has been filed with malafide intention in order to mislead the OPs.
9. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased one tractor manufactured by OPs No.2&3 through their authorized dealer OP No.1.It is submitted that as per the feedback received from the concerned delaer, the tractor was brought for 1^st service on 3.4.2015 and had run 65 hours, service was done properly. Again on 24.8.2015 the problem in gear box was pointed out and the same was resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter on 29.9.2015 and 27.10.2015 tractor was brought  for routine service when the tractor had run 379 and 505 hours respectively and at that time no major problem was pointed out. It is admitted that Sonalika brand is most trusted brand in India as well as abroad and are manufactured with standardize techniques and quality control system of ISO 9001 and 14001 and then sent for sale to the dealers after proper quality checks and rigorous tests. It is admitted that on receipt of legal notice engineer was appointed who inspected the tractor but no problem was found but as a goodwill gesture gear box was changed. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs as the tractor is running perfectly. After denying all other averments, the OPs No.2&3 also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
10.  
10. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the cokjmplainant has tendered Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant, Ex.CB affidavit of Kehar Singh alongwith RC of his tractor bearing No.PB-11BY-3361 .The complainant also tendered Ex.CC affidavit of Paramjit Singh alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C6 and closed the evidence.
11. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA of Manjit Singh alongwith documents Exs.OP1 & OP2 and closed the evidence.
12. The ld. counsel for OPs No.2&3 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPB affidavit of Rajnish Kumar Sandal alongwith documents Exs.OP4 to OP5 and closed the evidence.
13. The complainant has filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
14.  
14. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased a tractor from OP No.1 on 9.12.2014 for Rs.5,67,000.The ld. counsel further argued that soon after the purchase of the tractor, it started giving problems and the OPs on 10.12.2014 got inspected the tractor from their engineer. The ld. counsel further argued that the gear box was giving problem and gear box was changed by the OPs. The ld. counsel further argued that even after change of the gear box still the tractor is giving problem, as such the tractor be replaced.
15. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs argued that there was no defect in the tractor in question, even though they have changed the gear box.T he ld. counsel further argued that it is not mentioned that what exactly is the defect in the tractor as of now. The ld. counsel further argued that all the job works were done to the satisfaction of the customer and he relied upon the citations  Sushila Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Dr.Birendra Narain Prasad  and others RP No.1652 of 2006, New Age Motors Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs.Vijay Kumar & Ors 2009(3)CPC 681.The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant is using the tractor for commercial purpose besides his own land.
16. To prove this case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit,Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his complaint. He has also tendered affidavit of Kehar Singh, Ex.CB and affidavit of Paramjit Singh,Ex.CC,Ex.C1 is the RC of the tractor in the name of Kehar Singh, again Ex.C1 is legal notice, Exs.C2 to C4 are postal receipts,Ex.C5 is legal notice,Ex.C6 is RC of tractor in the name of Gurdeep Singh.
17. On the other hand Sh.Manjit Singh has tendered his affidavit,Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per his written statement, Ex.OPB is the affidavit of Rajnish Kumar Sandal for OPs No.2&3, Ex.OP1 is the job card dated 3.4.2015,whereby filter and engine oil was changed.Ex.OP2 is the another job card dated 24.8.2015 on the file, whereby three filters, engine oil and locks were changed. As per 3^rd job card dated 1.12.2015,Ex.OP3, gear box which was under warranty was changed alongwith fuel pump and the gear oil.Ex.OP5 is terms and conditions between OPs No.2&3 and OP1.
18. As per the job card, Ex.OP3 admittedly the gear box was changed way back on 1.12.2015 alongwith other equipments of the gear box and fuel pump was also repaired. As per the pleadings in para no.9 of the complaint, it is mentioned that even after the change of the gear box the gear box is not performing well. In the prayer clause, the complainant has prayed that the tractor in question be replaced or in the alternative  Rs.5,67,000/- alongwith interest @9% per annum be given to him. Further the complainant has also sought Rs.1lac as compensation for harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.
19. As the tractor in question cannot be replaced and the amount cannot be returned back because the company has already changed the gear box about six years back and there is no evidence on the file that the tractor was not in working condition from the last six years. As the OP company is big company and could have easily examined some expert engineer to give a detailed report on the file that after changing of the gear box no defects remains in the tractor, whereas a farmer cannot get the report of an engineer as  this facility is always available with the manufacturer but the manufacturer had not given any expert report.
20.  So due to our above discussion, the tractor cannot be replaced. As such the complaint stands partly allowed and the OPs are directed to repair the gear box to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant is also held entitled to Rs.5000/-as compensation and Rs.5000/-as costs of litigation to be paid by the OPs.Compliance of the order be made by the  OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:18.2.2021       

                   Y.S.Matta         Vinod Kumar Gulati       Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                    Member                 Member                                  President