RAM BHAGAT Vs. NEW HOLLAND FIAT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
LAWS(HRCDRC)-2013-10-10
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on October 03,2013

RAM BHAGAT Appellant
VERSUS
New Holland Fiat (India) Pvt. Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

REKHA GUPTA,MEMBER - (1.) REVISION petition no. 2088 of 2013 has been filed under 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment/ order dated 14.09.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula ( the State Commission) in First Appeal no. 341 of 2012.
(2.) AS per the facts of the case as gleaned from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad ( the District Forum) the petitioner had purchased one tractor New Holland 5500 from respondent no. 2 against its price of Rs.5,40,000/ - on 20.02.209 and at the time of purchase he was assured of two year warranty/ guarantee. It is further stated that two after purchase of the tractor, the petitioner approached respondent no. 2 with the complaint of excess consumption of diesel. This defect in tractor was repaired but that was not up to the standard of company. Ultimately engine of the tractor stopped working due to inadequate supply of diesel and there were many more defects in the tractor such as leakage in silencer, excess of smoke etc. On complaint, the engineer of the respondents had checked the tractor on 22.11.2009 who after some repair stated that now the tractor will function properly. As per version of the petitioner, tractor was not in working position and he again brought the tractor to the respondent no. 2 on 12.02.2010 where service of the same was provided but service book and other documents were kept by the respondent no. 2 with the excuse that same are to be sent to the company. The petitioner repeatedly requested the respondents to rectify the fault in his tractor but the respondents were postponing the matter under one pretext or the other. Ultimately he served the respondents a legal notice to this effect but same was not replied. The petitioner had got checked his tractor from another mechanic who reported that engine of the tractor is not working properly due to dust as dry air cleaner is fitted inside and cracks also appeared in the tyres due to manufacturing defects. The petitioner prayed for getting necessary repair and replacement of two big tyres of tractor besides compensation of Rs.50,000/ - from the respondents for harassment and Rs.1,00,000/ - on account of expenses regarding hire of alternative tractor for his agricultural work.
(3.) UPON notice the respondent no. 1 did not appear and was proceeded ex -parte, however, Shri V K Mehta, Advocate appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2 and filed the written statement by taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, locus standi and jurisdiction. On merit the version of the petitioner was contested but at the same time it was admitted that defect in tractor was removed by the Engineer of the company by changing the old pump and satisfaction letter was got signed from the son of the petitioner to this effect and no other complaint was received. As regards Form 22 is concerned, duplicate of same is to be given against the affidavit of the petitioner, it was duly communicated to the petitioner over the telephone and personally as well but petitioner has not given any such affidavit while denying the rest of contents of the complaint, it is submitted that complaint in hand be dismissed with costs. The District Forum came to the conclusions that the petitioner has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, resultantly instant complaint is hereby allowed. The respondent no. 1 - M/s New Holland Fiat (India) Pvt. Ltd., is directed to remove all the defects in tractor including replacement of two big tyres enabling the petitioner to use the same in perfect condition and to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - as compensation on account of being deficient in service and for the loss cause to the complainant for arranging an alternate mode including the harassment of all counts and to provide the petitioner duplicate Form 22. Respondent no. 1 is further directed to comply with the order within a period of one month failing which the petitioner shall be entitled for replacement of tractor with the new one along with compensation amount of Rs.50,000/ - .;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.