GENERAL SERVICES OF SOUTH ARCOT Vs. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the complainant. The substance of his averment before the District Forum is as follows :

(2.) In 1980, he wanted to purchase one tractor and approached the State Bank of India, Mylam branch; that bank stipulated that the loan could be granted only for the 'international' tractor manufactured by the opposite party. He accepted the same. The loan was sanctioned. The tractor was purchased. After the purchase of the tractor, he found several defects in the machine, particularly the following ones : (i) Crank shafts including bearings were weak. They broke frequently and had to be changed twice. (ii) Inner housing and bearing were also weak and defective. They had to be changed 4 times. (iii) Full housing and bearings were weak and defective and had to be changed. (iv) Hydraulic crown wheels were also weak and defective. They and 2 full pinions and 2 big wheels had also to be changed twice. During the period of 6 years from the time of purchase, the tractor could not be used for nearly 4 years and the party incurred a loss of Rs.35,000/- on account of non-use. He therefore prayed for the reimbursement of the total amount of Rs.75,000/- representing the loss incurred by him.

(3.) The opposite party in his counter stated as follows : the warranty for the vehicle came to an end within a period of one year from the date of delivery; the seller is not responsible for the brake-down or failure after that period. The complaint has been filed nearly after 6 years. The opposite party has not violated any of the provisions of the Act. Nor did he fail to fulfill his obligation to the consumer. No details were given as to when the brake-down occurred and when the tractor got repaired and by whom the repairs were done. The purchaser failed to take proper care of the vehicle. On the basis of the above statements, the opposite party prayed the District Forum to dismiss the complaint.