Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Cnh Industrial (india) Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Known As "new Holland Fiat (india) Pvt. Ltd.) v. Kulwant Singh & 2 Ors

Cnh Industrial (india) Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Known As "new Holland Fiat (india) Pvt. Ltd.) v. Kulwant Singh & 2 Ors

(National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi)

Revision Petition No. 1199/2017 | 15-12-2017

JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) -1- The complainants purchased a tractor from respondent Shahi Motors, authorized dealer of the petitioner company, for a consideration of Rs.6,90,000/-. According to the complainant, the tractor was purchased on 06.09.2014 whereas according to the OP, it was purchased on

17.03.2014. Alleging that the tractor sold to the complainants, did not have a sealed engine and was a re-painted one, the complainants sought replacement of the said tractor. Since replacement was refused, they approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking refund of the amount paid by them alongwith compensation. They also alleged that the tractor had been giving trouble, since October 2014.

2. The complaint was resisted by OP No.1 in the complaint namely M/s Shahi Motors as well as by the petitioner company which is the manufacturer of the tractor. Both the OPs claimed that the tractor was purchased on 17.03.2014 though the invoice was issued on 06.09.2014 when the outstanding balance was paid by the complainants. They denied the allegation of the complainants that the tractor was giving trouble right since October 2014. They also denied the allegation that the engine of the tractor was not a sealed one and that the tractor had been re-painted.

3. The District Forum having ruled in favour of the complaiant, the petitioners as well as its authorized dealer Shahi Motors approached the concerned State Commission by way of two separate appeals. Vide impugned orders dated 20.03.2017, the State Commission dismissed the appeals, thereby affirming the order passed by the District Forum. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

4. The first question which arises for consideration in this petition is as to on which date the tractor was purchased. A perusal of the Tractor Delivery Certificate dated 17.03.2014 which is a document in Gurmukhi/Punjabi would show that the tractor was purchased and its delivery was taken from Shahi Motors on 17.03.2014. The certificate further shows that out of the sale consideration, a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- was received on that date, leaving the balance amount of Rs.3,40,000/-. The document being in Gurmukhi/Punjabi and being duly signed by the complainant Gurmeet Singh, it is not possible to accept the contention that the tractor was purchased on 06.09.2014. The invoice was issued on 06.09.2014 as the balance amount was paid only on that date. However, as far as the sale and delivery of the tractor is concerned, it was complete on 17.03.2014.

5. This is not the case of the complainants that the tractor had given trouble prior to October

2014. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that for at least seven months, the tractor was not giving any trouble to the complainants.

6. The case of the complainants is that they had taken the tractor several times to the workshop of M/s Shahi Motors and had also left the tractor there in the morning before collecting the same in the evening. However, no job card, receipt or invoice was filed by the complainants to prove the alleged visits. No one would leave a tractor for repairs/checking without at least taking a receipt or a job card recording the problem being given by the tractor. In the absence of any document evidencing a visit to the workshop of Shahi Motors and leaving the tractor there for the purpose of checking/repairs, it is difficult to accept the case set out by the complainants in this regard and consequently I have no hesitation in holding that the complainants never visited the workshop of M/s Shahi Motors alleging a defect in the tractor purchased by them. It was only by way of a legal notice dated 12.01.2015 that the complainants, for the first time alleged trouble in the tractor purchased by them and claimed that its engine was not sealed and it was a re-painted tractor.

7. The District Forum had appointed an Engineer Mr. Bhupesh Bhardwaj to examine the tractor and give a report after the said examination. The report of Mr. Bhupesh Bhardwaj who is a B.E. and a licensed Surveyor, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:

I found that some impression on all nuts of chamber, (paint was not intact on heads of nuts fitted on chamber), I also found abnormalities of adhesive filled at joint of gasket of housing. On the basis of this impressions carried out by me, it seems that somebody might have opened/try to open the chamber, few photographs of the vehicle were taken from different angles, and chamber nuts and main front engine joint, in which we can see the heads of nuts. Low high gear was not working, engine starting problem, excess smoke release found from tractor, my report is based on my technical inspection held on dated 19.09.2015.
It is thus, evident that someone had tried to open the chamber of the tractor before it was inspected by Mr. Bhupesh Bhardwaj. Otherwise, he would not have found impressions on the nuts of the chamber and the paint on the heads of the nuts fitted on the chamber would have been found intact by him. Had someone already not tampered with the chamber of the tractor, Mr. Bhupesh Bhardwaj would not have found adhesive filled at the joint of the gasket. There is no explanation from the complainants as to who had tried to open the chamber and had filled adhesive at the joint of the gasket. The inevitable inference therefore, is that the tractor was mishandled by someone at the behest of the complainants before it was examined by Mr. Bhupesh Bhardwaj and that is why the paint on the heads of the nuts fitted on the chambers was not found intact. In view of the aforesaid tampering/mishandling of the tractor at the behest of the complainants, I am unable to accept that the engine of the tractor was not a sealed engine and/or the tractor was a re-painted tractor at the time it was sold to the complainants. The failure of the complainants to even take the tractor to the dealer also corroborates the aforesaid inference. In view of the said finding, the orders passed by the fora below cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside.

8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders are set aside and the complaint is consequently, dismissed with no orders as to costs. ......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER

Advocate List
Bench
  • MR. V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
Eq Citations
  • 2 (2018) CPJ 537 (NC)
  • LQ/NCDRC/2017/3032
  • 2 (2018) CPJ 537 (NC)
Head Note

A. Consumer Protection — Services — Repairs/Replacement/Refund — Replacement of tractor — Tractor was purchased on 17.03.2014 but invoice was issued on 06.09.2014 — Complainant alleged that tractor was not a sealed engine and was a re-painted one — Complaint was resisted by OP No.1 in the complaint namely M/s Shahi Motors as well as by the petitioner company which is the manufacturer of the tractor — Both the OPs claimed that the tractor was purchased on 17.03.2014 though the invoice was issued on 06.09.2014 when the outstanding balance was paid by the complainants — They denied the allegation of the complainants that the tractor was giving trouble right since October 2014 — They also denied the allegation that the engine of the tractor was not a sealed one and that the tractor had been re-painted — Held, it is not possible to accept the contention that the tractor was purchased on 06.09.2014 — The invoice was issued on 06.09.2014 as the balance amount was paid only on that date — However, as far as the sale and delivery of the tractor is concerned, it was complete on 17.03.2014 — Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Ss. 2(1)(o) & 2(1)(d) — Consumer Protection, Food and Drugs Act, 2019, S. 2(1)(o) & 2(1)(d) B. Consumer Protection, Food and Drugs Act, 2019 — S. 2(1)(o) & 2(1)(d) — Defect — Defects in services — Alleged defect in tractor — Complainant alleged that tractor was not a sealed engine and was a re-painted one — Complainant never visited the workshop of M/s Shahi Motors alleging a defect in the tractor purchased by them — It was only by way of a legal notice dated 12.01.2015 that the complainants, for the first time alleged trouble in the tractor purchased by them and claimed that its engine was not sealed and it was a re-painted tractor — Held, in view of the aforesaid tampering/mishandling of the tractor at the behest of the complainants, it was held that the engine of the tractor was not a sealed engine and/or the tractor was a re-painted tractor at the time it was sold to the complainants — Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Ss. 2(1)(o) & 2(1)(d) — Consumer Protection, Food and Drugs Act, 2019, Ss. 2(1)(o) & 2(1)(d)