SURENDER KUMAR Vs. EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/complainant has made a complaint charging the respondents with adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices and stating therein that he purchased an Eicher Tractor, model 'gold 352', Double Cylinder from the United Tractors and Engineers (respondent No.4) for Rs.87,000/- and it was delivered to him on 7.4.1986. It has also been stated that the tractor, in question, was covered by warranty for a period of 365 days or 1000 working hours, whichever was earlier. The grievance of the applicant/complainant as set out in the complaint petition is that the tractor, in question, was defective and even though it was repaired and serviced from time to time, the defects were never fully removed. It has been complained that it had the following defects : (a) The cooling system is defective, does not work, could not be brought in order by the local dealer inspite of the repeated efforts. Consequently, the engine becomes heated just within half an hour of the start of work. (b) The fuel pump suspends its work just after 15-20 minutes of the start of work. (c) The hydraulic system and hyderaulic pump is totally out of order, could not be put in order, inspite of repeated efforts by the mechanics of the opposite party No.4. (d) The Hydraulic lock is out of order due to which it is not possible to use any agricultural equipment. (e) Profuse leakage from main seal, tening seal Hydraulic Shaft seal and Gear Box packings. Leakage could not be stopped by the mechanics of opposite party No.4. (f) The gears are very tight, jam occurs very often, change of gear is very troublesome which created the probabilities of accidents some times. (g) The fuel tank leaking since the very beginning and the mechanics of O. P. No.4 seriously tried to seal the leakage of fuel tank by using araldite but to no improvements. (h) Engine is not in a position to bear the load and it suspends its working on load and used to throw the mobil oil from the silencer. (i) The steering of the tractor is very hard and tight and more occasionally it is stood jam and defective which also creates the probabilities of accident.

(2.) It has been further stated by the applicant/complainant that on his complaint to the respondent No.4, an engineer was deputed on 10.10.1996, and after inspection of the tractor, he recommended that some parts were required to be changed and even though some of the parts were changed by the respondent, the tractor did not function satisfactorily. The applicant/complainant has prayed that either he may be refunded the cost of the tractor along with damages or the tractor should be replaced.

(3.) On the basis of the complaint petition, a Notice of Enquiry dated the 28th January, 1991 was issued to the respondents. The respondents in their replies has stated that the tractor, in question, was serviced time and again and six free services were provided and the sixth free service was attended to on 21.1.1987 by respondent No.4 and by then the tractor had already run 745 hours and the history card clearly revealed that the tractor was used and was running till the time of the last service. It has also been stated that the defects which were brought to the notice of the respondent No.4 were attended to properly to the satisfaction of the applicant/complainant and the applicant/complainant also issued satisfaction letter expressing his satisfaction with the repair and service done by the respondent No.4. It has also been mentioned in the reply of respondent No.4 that the applicant/complainant did not show interest in its upkeep and did not send it for seventh and eighth service inspite of reminders.