Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

New Holland Tractors (India) Pvt.Ltd vs Kamlakar Krushna Holkar on 17 January, 2012

                                  1                      F.A.243/08

                                             Date of filing : 05/03/2008
                                             Date of order :17/01/2012

MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

FIRST APPEAL NO. : 243/2008
IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.: 243 OF 2008
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: AHMEDNAGAR

The Manager
New Holland Tractors (India) Pvt.Ltd
50, Okhla Industrial Estate,
Phase III, New Delhi 110 020.                      .. Appellant

      VERSUS

1     Kamlakar Krushna Holkar
      R/o.Gangapur Post.Guha,
      R/o.Rahuri Dist.Ahmednagar.

2     Vinayak Ransing
      Through Om Tractors,
      Malhar Chowk, Station road,
      Ahmednagar.                                  ...Respondent

      CORAM :     Shri. Mr.D.N.Admane , Hon`ble Presiding Judicial
                  Member.

Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.

Presnet: Adv.Shri.V.N.Upadhye appeared for appellant.

Adv.Shri.S.N.Lavekar for respondent No.1.

Adv.Shri.A.S.More for respondent No. 2.

O R A L O R D E R Per Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon'ble Presiding Member.

1. The Manager New Holland Tractors (India Pvt.Ltd New Delhi ) appellant herein/original respondent No. 2 preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by Dist. Forum, Ahmednagar in C.C.No. 298/2007.

2. Facts of the complaint are as under.

Complainant Kamlakar Krushna Holkar resident of Gangapur Post.Guha Tq.Rahuri Dist. Ahmednagar had purchased tractor of 43 H.P. from opponent No. 2 Om Tractors, Ahmednagar. For purchasing said tractor complainant availed loan of Rs 6,80,000/- by hypothecation of the land of himself and his mother. Complainant purchased said tractor with trolley of 6 tons, pultiplough and rotary tiller on 28/06/2002 from opponent No. 2. Said tractor was manufactured by appellant. Model number of tractor was 3230, chesis No 354625 and engine No. A-64158.Said tractor was registered by No. M.H.17/V-1119. After purchase said tractor runs smoothly for only 15 to 20 days thereafter many problems were occurred, defects like non working of engine, gas kit, breaking of level mining rod, Hydrolic strips, defects in wiring and fuse box etc. were found. Therefore complainant approached to opponent No. 2. Every time repairs were carried out. Much time consumed in the said repairs. Therefore complainant could not carry out his agricultural operation. Mechanic from opponent No. 2 visited complainant for repair of tractor but he expressed his inability to repair as the same is beyond repair. Complainant therefore issued legal notice dated 30/04/2007. Again on 07/06/2007 round table of trolley was broken but it was not repaired by opponent. Therefore, complainant approached to Dist. Forum and demanded price of tractor Rs 4,88,500/- with interest and replacement of trolley and plough with compensation for mental agony.

3. Appellant appeared before the Forum and denied the complaint. Opponent No.1 submitted that Dist. Forum Ahmednagar has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint as opponent is resident of New Delhi. It is further submitted by opponent that whenever defects were informed by the complainant, they were repaired within warranty period. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service. It is further submitted by opponent that on 12/07/2005 Engineer from Company inspected the vehicle and found that defects were not of manufacturing defects but are minor defects.

4. Opponent No. 2 appeared before the Forum submitted that tractor was run for 340 hrs and in the said period it was not brought for any repair therefore it can not be said that tractor was not working smoothly. It is further submitted by opponent No. 2 that whenever tractor brought for servicing required repairs were carried out, therefore there is no deficiency in service. Dist. Forum appointed Motor Vehicle Inspector from R.T.O. Office as a Commissioner and he submitted his report on 19/09/2007, according to which there were many defects but he could not open the vehicle therefore he did not give his report regarding manufacturing defects. But he recorded some defects found in the working of tractor.

5. After hearing all the parties Dist. Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed opponent to repair the tractor free of cost and made it in road worthy condition, in the alternative it is further directed by Dist. Forum that if tractor could not repair opponent to replace the tractor by new tractor of the same model and same horse power or else to refund of Rs 4,13,000/- with interest @ 10 % from 01/07/2007.

6. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and order original opponent No. 1 New Holland Tractors came in appeal. Opponent No. 2 did not file the appeal as they were willing to obey the order of Dist. Forum. Opponent No. 2 did not comply the order within stipulated period Therefore Dist. Forum allowed the execution petition No. 93/2008. Said order was challenged by opponents before the State Commission by Revision Petition No. 34/2008. Said revision petition was dismissed by State Commission on 19/07/2011.

7. In the present appeal Adv. Upadhye appeared for appellant. Adv. Lavekar appeared for respondent No. 1 and Adv. More appeared for respondent No. 2.It is submitted by Adv. Upadhye that after the receipt of complaint about defects in the tractor by complainant every 4 F.A.243/08 time required repairs were carried out by the appellant. It is further submitted by Adv. Upadhye that all the defects were not manufacturing defects but were of minor type. Every time after servicing job card were issued to the complainant which were signed by complainant after satisfaction about his grievance. It is further submitted by Adv. Upadhye that tractor had run more than 340 hrs. Therefore it can not be said that tractor was not suffering from any manufacturing defects. There is no expert report against the appellant, therefore it can not be said that vehicle was having manufacturing defects. It is further submitted by Adv. Upadhye that even after filing of appeal appellant many times approached to complainant to bring his vehicle for repair but he did not bring his vehicle for repair. In support of his argument Adv. Upadhye relied on following cases :

1 Escorts Ltd Vs. N.K.Warape 1989-96 Consumer 2607 (NC).

2. Dagdu Bhairu Bhosale VsScooter India Ltd It is contended that (2006) CPJ 143 (NC).

3. Classic Automobiles Vs.Lila Nand Mishra I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC).

4. Merck Ltd (Formerly known as E Merck (I) Ltd Vs Hubli Diagnostice Medicare and Research Centre Pvt Ltd I (2010) CPJ 274 (NC).

5. Hyundai Motor (I) Ltd Vs Om Prakash Kidar Nath (2010) CPJ 324 Punjab (SC).

6. Telco Vs .Moosa 1986-94 NC and SC on Consumer Cases 1367.

7. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd Vs B.G. Tahkurdesai I (1993) CPJ72 (NC).

8. Ajintha Chit Funds (P) Ltd Vs. Telco I (2007) CPJ 2004 (NC).

9. Maruti Udyog Ltd Vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra 2006 AIR SCW 1681.

10 Jose Philip Mampilil Vs Premier Automobiles Ltd 2004 (2) SCC 278 :2004 AIR SCW 648.

In Jose Philip Mampillil Versus M/s.Premier Automobiles Ltd & another reported in 2004 AIR (SCW) 648 and Maruti Udyog Ltd 5 F.A.243/08 Versus Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and another reported in 2006 (4) (SC) 113.

8. Adv. Lavekar appeared for respondent No. 1 he submitted that respondent had obtained loan by hypothecating land of himself and and his mother for purchase of tractor. Said tractor was purchased for carry out the agricultural operation, but since the date of purchase tractor was suffering from many defects. Several time complainant was constrain to take the tractor for repairs from opponent No. 2. Opponent No. 2 used to retain the tractor for repairs with them. Ttherefore complainant suffered huge loss. It is further submitted by Adv. Lavekar that bank filed recovery suit against the complainant therefore complainant suffered mental agony. It is further submitted by Adv.Lavekar that Dist. Forum rightly considered the fact and record while allowing the complaint. He relied on various judgments of State Commission and National Commission.

1. IV (2010) CPJ 160, Makwana Bharatkumar Jethalal Versus Punjab Automobiles & Anr. (para ii)

2. II (2008) CPJ 189 (NC) Tractors & Farm Equipment Ltd Versus Uttam Pandurang Bhosale (para 12 to 18 ).

3. II (2008) CPJ 206 (NC) Nilambar Mishra & Anr. Versus A.K.Datta & Ors. (para 21 to 23 )

4. II (2008) CPJ 174 (NC), Bhopal Motors PvtLtd Versus Saudan Singh & Ors. (Para 8,9,15)

5. III (2003) CPJ 127 (NC),Goldtech Scales & Systems Pvt.Ltd & others Versus Gurumukh Singh.

6. II (2006) CPJ 1 (NC), Bangalore City Corporation Versus Dr.Shankarappa (Para 28,34).

7. II (2007) CPJ 130 Sooraj Automobiles Ltd (Marketing Manager) Versus Sadananda Sahu & anr. (Para 5 ).

8. III (2008) CPJ 266 Kinetic Engineering (P) Ltd & Anr. Versus Santosh Kumr Prasad (Para 10).

9. III (2009) CPJ 145 Fiat India Private Limited Versus R.C. Magotra & Anr. (Par 6,7)

10. III (2008) CPJ 119 (NC), Maruti Suzuki (India)Ltd Versus Adulapuram Buchiraji & Ors (Para 3,4)

11. IV (2008) CPJ 425 Rajiv Gulati Versus Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co.Ltd & Ors. (Para 23,25,27)

12. II (2008) CPJ 22 (NC), Maruti Udyog Limited Versus Narender Kumar Verma & Anr (Para 7,11,13)

13. IV (2004) CPJ 226 Gulzar Abdul Rahim Mulla Versus Manager,Augo Industries Goa Pvt.Ltd & Ors (Para 15,16,20,22)

9. Adv. More filed application on behalf of opponent No. 2 to prayed to transpose him as appellant No.2. Said application rejected as it is filed at the time of final hearing. It is submitted by Adv. More that respondent No. 2 was ready to comply the order of Dist. Forum but complainant himself avoided to bring the tractor for repairs. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.2.

10. We heard all the counsels and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that complainant purchased the tractor with the help of financial assistance of the bank. For the said purchase he had hypothecated land of himself and his mother. It is an admitted fact that immediately after the purchase, tractor started giving trouble, therefore tractor was brought to the opponent No. 2 many times. It is also admitted fact that many time repairs were carried out by respondent No.2. It is also admitted fact that engineer from appellant company visited the complainant for inspection of tractor this means admittedly their were many defects in the tractor. It is the contention of the respondent No. 2 that they were willing to obey the order of Dist. Forum. This itself is admission about the manufacturing defects occurred in the tractor. The opponent No. 2 tried to delay the repairs, Opponent No. 2 filed an application for transposing him as appellant at the stage of final hearing. In our view they tried to delay the 7 F.A.243/08 hearing. It is an admitted fact that tractor was purchased in the year 2006 and now in the year 2011 appellant are offering repairs of the tractor this itself is causing mental harassment of respondent No. 1. If appellant have bonafide intention they might have repaired the tractor immediately after the order of Dist. Forum but till today they tried to prolong the matter on one or other ground. In our view Dist. Forum after considering aforesaid fact and evidence rightly directed appellant to refund the price of the tractor. Hence we do not want to interfere the order of Dist. Froum. Hence, O R D E R

1. Appeal is dismissed

2. Appellant to pay Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and Rs 5000/-

for cost in the appeal.

3. Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.

                Mrs.Uma S.Bora                       Mr.D.N.Admane
                  Member                       Presiding Judicial Member




Patil A.H.
Steno H.G.
 8   F.A.243/08