Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Tirath Pal Singh and another, respondents/complainants (hereinafter called as "the respondents") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the appellants, making the averments that they are owners of vehicle tractor bearing No.PB-054-E-2830 Make John Deere, Model 5060-E which was purchased on 21.06.2011 from appellant no.2, who is authorized dealer of appellant no.1. The said tractor started giving troubles immediately after the purchase and the periodical services were carried out through the authorized dealers of John Deere Tractor, but the tractor in question was not working to the satisfaction of the respondents. The said tractor was taken to appellant no.2 time and again and some parts were replaced and on 14.11.2011, engine oil and oil filter were changed and on 23.04.2012, fan assembly, sensor water temperature, air filters were changed. On 24.04.2012, the technician of Saini Agro Service, Hajipur, Dasuya went to the spot where the tractor was standing and the technician changed the filter, water temperature sensor and coolant water and while they were testing after changing the parts, the engine got blasted and all the electrical wiring burnt which shows that the tractor was having manufacturing defect regarding the temperature control and due to that, the engine blasted. The engine box was giving noise and after testing, it never started. On 27.04.2012, sensor water temperature, fuel injection pump were changed, but still the tractor was not working. The said tractor was passed to work with the combine.

8. Contesting parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.

9. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that from the photocopies of the counterfoils mark C-12 to Mark C-15, it is evident that the respondents have got the tractor in question serviced free of charge in so far as first 2 or 3 services are concerned. The copy of job card Mark C-3 proves that the routine repair was done by changing the engine oil and oil filter. From the copies of job cards Mark C-3, Mark C-4 and Mark C-6, it is clear that sensor water temperature (12V-24V) alongwith fan assembly and air filter were changed, besides changing the fuel injection pump, DB-4 injection pump. Repeated change of these parts itself indicates the problems faced by the tractor in question due to overheating of tractor. The temperature of the engine was not properly controlled and the respondents have to visit time and again. The respondents have also examined Sh. Darwara Singh, Proprietor of Darwar Diesel Workshop, who filed his affidavit Ex.C-17 and deposed that the engine of the tractor was totally ceased due to over-temperature of the engine. The District Forum observed that the manufacturing defect cannot be cured by only replacing the engine. Appellant no.2, who is dealer, failed to come forward to deny the allegations. The tractor in question is having manufacturer defect which cannot be removed even by the repairs of the engine, as has been told by the expert. The respondents have failed to prove the loss of crop. The complaint was partly accepted, with the direction to the appellants to replace the tractor of the respondents with a new one or refund its price alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. and to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there were normal problems and within seven days, the tractor was brought on four days and the parts were changed. The evidence of Sh. Darwara Singh, Mechanic is not worth relying and he has carried out the inspection in the fields which shows that the tractor was working. The change of sensor does not show any manufacturing defect. As per job cards Mark C-3 and Mark C-4, engine oil, oil filter were changed and sensor water temperature was changed. As per Mark C-6, on 27.04.2012, the tractor had run 1420 hours and sensor water temperature, fuel injection pump and DB-4, injection pump were changed and the tractor was delivered to the entire satisfaction of the respondents. The expert examined is only a mechanic and he was 8th class pass. He was not equipped with the tools, to ascertain the manufacturing defect. It has been argued that as per the law laid down in case "Maruti Udyog Vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr.", (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases-644, only the defective parts can be replaced and not the vehicle itself. Sh. Darwara Singh is not the expert in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Vs Regency Hospital Ltd. & Ors.", 2010 (1) RCR (Civil)-15.

14. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents contended that the impugned order passed by the District Forum is legal and valid and there is no ground to interfere with the same and the appeal may be dismissed.

15. We have considered the respective version/submissions of the parties and have minutely scrutinized the entire record.

16. The respondents have placed on file the job card Mark C-3 dated 14.11.2011 and at that time, the tractor in question had run 320 hours and it was the third free service and in routine, the engine oil and oil filter were changed. Job card Mark C-4 is dated 23.04.2012 and at that time, the tractor in question had run 1400 hours and the service was done under warranty and fan assembly, sensor water temperature (12-V-24V), air filter were replaced. Job card Mark C-6 dated 27.04.2012 reveals that the tractor had run 1420 hours and the parts changed were sensor water temperature, fuel injection pump, DB-4 injection pump and the vehicle was serviced/repaired to the entire satisfaction of the respondents and the tractor was still under warranty. Thereafter, there is copy of legal notice and the postal receipts and other documents have no bearing on the question of manufacturing defect. Ex.C-17 is the affidavit of Sh. Darwara Singh, Mechanic, who has deposed that he is Diesel Mechanic and he is specialist in Swaraj Tractors, John Deere, Ford, Escort, and Mahindra. He deposed that the engine of the tractor was totally ceased due to over-temperature of the engine. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the inspection was carried out in the presence of two attendants from appellant no.2. The evidence of this witness to prove the manufacturing defect in the tractor in question, cannot be considered in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Vs Regency Hospital Ltd. & Ors." (supra). However, he is an experienced mechanic and he was able to find out the reason for the ceasing of the engine and that was due to overheating. This fact of overheating is also proved from the job cards because the sensor water temperature has to be changed time and again and that indicates that there was manufacturing defect in the engine only. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Maruti Udyog Vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr." (supra), only the defects parts can be replaced. In the present case, it was the engine which was totally defective and that was required to be replaced, but not the entire vehicle.