1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents, as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 30.11.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 752 of 2016 in which order dated 13.06.2016 of  Sonepat District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum ) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 301 of 2015 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 30.11.2017 of the State Commission

2.       While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP No.2 ) was Appellant and the Respondent No.1 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘Complainant’) and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were also respondent No.2 to 4  in the said FA No. 752 of 2016 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was OP No.2, Respondents No.1 was Complainant and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were OP Nos.1, 3 and 4 before the District Forum in the CC No. 301 of 2015.    Notice was issued to the Respondents on 27.02.2018. Petitioner filed Written Arguments / Synopsis on 05.01.2023 and Respondent No.1 filed Written Arguments / Synopsis on 21.12.2022. 

3.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that Complainant purchased a tractor vehicle Mahindra Arjun 605 D1 on 04.11.2014 from Respondent No.2 ( Vijay Agro Engineering Works), an authorized dealer of the Petitioner for a consideration of Rs.7,30,000/-.  The tractor vehicle was purchased for earning his livelihood by using for agricultural purposes.  Complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,30,000/-  in cash and remaining amount, which was to be paid in six monthly installments of Rs.1,00,000/- each, was financed from Respondent No.3 herein ( Magma Fincorp Ltd.).  At the time of purchase, the complainant was provided manufacturer warranty for a period of 12 months or 1000 operational hours of the tractor from the date of purchase.   After seven days from the date of purchase, the tractor was taken to the workshop of respondent no.2 on 11.11.2014 for routine first service and defects in the battery and lift were pointed out by the complainant.  The defect in the lift was removed but the complainant was asked to continue using the tractor with defects in the  battery.  When the complainant took the tractor to the workshop of respondent no.2 on 01.12.2014 for service, it was brought to their notice that tractor vehicle was not taking the required load and also pointed out other defects in the vehicle. The defects were not rectified and complainant was given assurance that defects would  be removed at the time of next  service. 

4.       Complainant further stated that when the tractor vehicle was again taken to the workshop on 01.06.2015, there was defect in the gear box of the vehicle and even after service defects could not be removed, though Self of the tractor was repaired but there was starting problem.    The vehicle was taken to the workshop of respondent no.2 several times for various defects like defects in the driver seat, lift.etc.  Even the pistons, ring, sleeve and seals were replaced but the defects were not completely removed.  The tractor was not taking the load and was brought to the workshop of respondent no.1 but problem still persisted.  Engineer of Respondent no.2, namely, Shamsher Singh, was called who checked the tractor vehicle and visited the fields of the complainant for observing the working of tractor which was videographed.  The Engineer told that tractor was taking extra diesel and was not taking load and was giving heat abnormally.  The tractor was got insured by the complainant with respondent no.4 herein ( Magma HDI Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.) initially for a period of one year. According to the complainant it became difficult for him to cultivate the agricultural land and had to face unnecessary harassment.   The service advisor of respondent no.2 did not utilize the coupons provided in the service book for free service when the tractor was taken for regular service.  Even the complainant also had to replace battery.   Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed a CC before the District Forum. 

5.       Vide order dated 13.06.2016, District Forum directed the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 herein ( OP Nos. 1 and 2 before the District Forum )  to replace the defective tractor of the complainant with new one of the same model, same company and same capacity and further directed the complainant to return the defective tractor to the OP No.1 and 2.  However, no deficiency in service was found on the part of Respondent No.3 and 4 ( OP No.3 and 4 ).

6.       Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, Petitioner appealed in State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 30.11.2017 in FA No. 752 of 2016 dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner. Hence the Petitioner is  before this Commission now in the present RP.

7.       Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 30.11.2017 of the State Commission mainly on the following grounds :

(i)      Petitioner had suggested that vehicle be sent for examination to an independent agency and complainant sought time to file name of the agency for expert opinion but names were not submitted by the complainant.

(ii)     Manufacturer is not under any liability to replace the entire vehicle in case any particular part ( or set of parts ) is held to be defective and relied on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in   Maruti   Udyog  Limited  Vs.  Susheel  Kumar  Gabgotra ( 2006) 4 SCC 644.

(iii)    The impugned order was passed without proper Quorum.

(iv)    A vehicle that completes 3200 hours of metered function in span of 3 years cannot have manufacturing defect.

(v)     The Complainant had installed a local extra air filter in the vehicle which was the main cause of the problem and it was a foreign element.

(vi)    The fuel injector pump malfunctioned because complainant used adulterated diesel. Manufacturer cannot be made liable for any claims with regard to battery, electrical lighting and fuel injection system and  complainant  had not impleaded Bosch ( manufacturer of Fuel Injection System) in the Complaint.

(vii)   Burden of Proof lies on the complainant to establish defect or manufacturing defect.

8.       Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

8.1.    Counsel for the Petitioner repeated the points which are stated in para 7, grounds for challenging the order of the State Commission, hence the same are not being repeated here.

8.2.    Counsel for the Complainant argued that during every visit to the workshop not only repair / rectification was done but there were replacement of lot of parts .  Counsel further argued that if the vehicle is repeatedly taken to service station for repairs, manufacturing defect must be assumed.  Even the expert engineer  Shri Shamsher Singh pointed out tractor was giving heat abnormally.  In respect of want of proper Quorum, counsel argued that order has passed by single Presiding Member / Judicial Member in view of the order of the Hon’ble President of the State Commission Haryana.

9.       In this case, both the fora below, after considering the relevant records and evidence before them, have come to a concurrent finding that there was a manufacturing defect in the tractor and the complainant is entitled for replacement of the tractor.  State Commission has also concluded that the problems relating to the tractor occurred during the warranty period.  Both the Fora below have given a detailed, speaking and well reasoned order in support of their findings, duly considered the evidence before it and rival contention of the parties.

10.     We have perused Annexure A-14, which gives date wise details of service record along with Hours run on each date, nature of service etc., relevant extract of which is given below:

11.     It is admitted that manufacturer’s warranty was for a period of 12 months or 1000 working hours, hence the above stated entire period was covered under the warranty.  The tractor started having trouble from day one, and problems recurred many times at short intervals.  The job cards clearly show that there were major defects, and the tractor had to go to the workshop repeatedly within a short span of less than one year, which was within the warranty period as per norms of Hours run as well as period. 

12.     Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of all relevant records, we are of the considered view that there are no reasons to interfere with the findings and judgment of the State Commission.  In this case, there are concurrent findings of both State Commission as well as District Forum, about the manufacturing defect.    As was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269],  the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. In Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577], the Hon’ble Supreme Court  held that “the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.”

13.     We do not find any infirmity or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence the same is upheld. Accordingly, the RP is dismissed.  Parties to  bear their respective costs.

14.     The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.