MANDEEP SINGH Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant purchased a tractor from Mr. Mallikarjun Motor and Scooters Mart, Davangere-opposite party No. 1. OP No. 1 is a dealer and OP Nos. 2 and 3 (Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd.) are the manufacturers of the tractor in question. As the complainant observed mechanical defects in the engine of the tractor during the second week of February, 1993, he sent the tractor to the showroom of the dealer who repaired the vehicle by replacing some parts and demanded Rs. 5,275. The complainant refused to take delivery as there were manufacturing defects and suspecting that the defects may recur even after the said repairs. The complainant issued a legal notice to Tafe (OP Nos. 2 and 3) to replace the tractor or in the alternative to refund the sale consideration. As there was no positive response, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. It is the contention of the OP No. 1, that the complainant had left the tractor at the showroom with the complaint of noise in engine without bringing the free service coupon book and when the engine was opened it was seized due to insufficient and improper lubricants and wrong handling of the tractor. The complainant approached OP Nos. 2 and 3 who are the manufacturers for relief. OP No. 3 felt that the demand of Rs. 5,275 was not proper and the tractor should be tested as the repairs were done during the warranty period but OPs 2 and 3 declined to replace the tractor. District Forum after assessing the evidence adduced by both the parties directed the OPs to replace the tractor with the brand new Massey Ferguson Tractor manufactured by TAFE, free of cost. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by this order, the TAFE filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission after going through the records of the case and evidence before them and also the report dated 9.3.1993 issued by M/s. Auto Machine Shop, Davangere dismissed the appeal with the cost of Rs. 5,000 payable by the OPs to the complainant. Hence, this revision by TAFE.

(2.) The issues before us are, (a) whether the defect in the engine necessitating re-boring of engine within six months of purchase of the tractor is a manufacturing defect; (b) whether report dated 9.3.1993 mentioned supra can be held to be material; and (c) whether defects have occurred due to use of non-standard lubricants and oil.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the defects in the tractor had necessitated re-boring of the engine within 6 months. It is a known fact that engine re-boring is required to be done after a vehicle covers a long distance or in the case of tractors it has run for a large number of hours, which is not the case in the dispute before us. M/s. Auto Machine Shop, Davangere inspected the tractor on 9.3.1993 and observed the following defects :