Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal
S K Dubey, President; B L Khare and Pramila S Kumar, Members Motilal Tiwari - Complainant
Versus
Neelgiri Tractors & Anr.- Opposite Parties
Complaint No. 11/96	Decided on 5-4-2002

 

2.	Facts giving rise to this complaint are thus: The complainant purchased a Mitsubishi M.T.180D tractor, Chassis No. T.D.890D Engine No.3 E.K.3C.9C.02914 Rotary No. R108 C.2319 on 16-9-93 for Rs. 1,46,000/- manufactured by the Opposite Party No.2 through their authorised dealer, the Opposite Party No.1, which had a warranty of one year or run of 7500 hours whichever is earlier. The complainant alleged that within two months from the date of purchase, the tractor developed defects in its hydraulic system and the breakage of clutch into pieces for which the complaint was lodged on 26-11-1993 to the authorised dealer. The complaint was attended by the mechanic of the authorised dealer in December 1993. Again on 15-12-1993, the clutch plate and the hydraulic system became defective and, hence, a complaint on phone was lodged. The mechanic of the dealer came on 16-12-1993 and removed the governor of the tractor and cover of the hydraulic system, but, the defects were not rectified. The mechanic came again on 15-1-1994 and repaired the tractor by replacement of the pump of Mico Company, which also stopped functioning from 18-1-1994 for which the complaints were made, but nobody attended the complaints. The tractor stopped running completely from May 1994 and remained idle till May 1995. The complainant alleged that in spite of repeated correspondence, the defects were not rectified, as a result of which the complainant had to suffer heavy loss. Therefore, for the supply of defective tractor, having manufacturing defects, the complainant prayed for its replacement by new one and for award of compensation of Rs. 7,61,000/- in various heads.
3.	The complaint was resisted. It is submitted that the complaint presented has been presented and prosecuted not by the consumer but by his brother, who holds power of attorney; hence, the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. On merits, it was submitted that five free services were done first on 26-10-93 on the run of 43 hours, second on 10-11-93 on the run of 148 hours, third on 11-12-93 on the run of 213 hours, fourth on 27-12-93 on the run of 315 hours and fifth on 25-4-94 on the run of 423 hours. On the service coupons, the complainant himself signed and gave a note of satisfactory condition of the tractor. Besides, the complainant has maintained the logbook, which shows the satisfactory run and the use of the tractor right from September 1993 to August 1995. The complaints made were attended by the mechanic of the Opposite Party who rectified the defect, which is also evident from the logbook of the tractor. After expiry of the warranty period, the parts were changed of which bill dated 23-5-95 was given, which was not paid. On the other hand, to avoid the payment of the bill, the complaint was filed. The tractor was sold at Rewa to be used in 25 acres of land but it was sent to Damoh where the complainant's brother was using the tractor in 75 acres of land. The defects occurred were due to mishandling of the tractor for which the opposite parties cannot be held liable.
4.	The complainant, in support of the complaint, has filed affidavits to prove the defects, of the mechanic Sheikh Rasid Khan and Ram Khilawan Tiwari, while the opposite parties have filed the affidavits of the expert mechanics who attended the complaints and rectified the defect from time to time, even at Damoh, of Sunil Sudhakar Pathak, expert mechanic, Vishnudutt Tiwari expert mechanic and Anurag, S/o Shri Mithila Prasad, Service Engineer. The opposite parties also filed service record and logbook.
5.	After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and on appraisal of free service record and logbook and report of Sunil Sudhakar Pathak, the submission of the learned Counsel for the complainant that on blank free service coupons signatures were obtained at the time of sale of the tractor and that the record of the service coupons is contrary and inconsistent to the logbook and filed report of Vishnudutt Tiwari, cannot be accepted, as the logbook maintained by the complainant clearly shows the run and use of the tractor and also timely attendance and rectification of the defects of the tractor. However, the logbook does not show the run of the tractor after Jun'94 till May-Jun'95. The warranty expired on 16-9-1994, that is, after expiry of a period of one year. The demand of Rs. 10,539/- dated 23-5-95 was made which, according to the opposite parties was raised because the defects were rectified after expiry of warranty.
6.	True, the affidavit filed by the complainant of the mechanics is vague, which does not prove any manufacturing defect. Therefore, in the absence of any manufacturing defects in the tractor by expert evidence, the order of the replacement of the tractor cannot be made. However, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the tractor had complaint of hydraulic system and clutch plate; logbook also shows that for the said defects, the tractor did not run and is lying idle.
7.	In the above circumstances, the ends of justice would meet, if the opposite parties are directed or ordered to replace, free of costs, hydraulic system and clutch plate of the tractor, which is lying idle at Damoh. The opposite parties shall comply the order within a period of six weeks from receipt of certified copy of this order.

In the result, the complaint is allowed as indicated herein with no order as to costs.

Complaint allowed.