PAIRABAI KURMI Vs. BRANCH MANAGER RAJA TRACTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainants have filed this appeal under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the 'act') against the order dated 7.7.1995 passed in Complaint Case No.65/1994 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narsinghpur (for short the 'district Forum' ).

(2.) It is not in dispute that the complainants purchased a Mahindra Tractor and Trolley on 16.11.1991 on payment of the full price with a warranty of one year with six free-service. After 3rd service on way at about distance of 65 kms. tractor went out of order. Therefore it was brought to the respondent No.1 the authorised dealer of manufacturer Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. , the respondent No.2. The tractor was repaired on 20,6.1994 of which authorised dealer charged the amount. The complainant thereafter did not turn up for other services. Complainant's allegation is that the tractor went out of order due to wrong fitting of the head nut which in third service was changed by the authorised dealer. The tractor was repaired at Jabalpur. Besides the expenses incurred in repairs the complainant suffered loss as they could not use the tractor for their agricultural operations. Hence, claimed Rs.1,20,000/- for the loss suffered, Rs.10,000/- for mental pain and sufferings and Rs.7,227/- the expenses incurred in repair of tractor and trolley. In defence version the allegations were denied. It was submitted that the head nut (piston) cannot be fitted in the engine from the reverse side. If it is so fitted the tractor cannot move or run as its engine will not function. The tractor when was brought was repaired by the authorised dealer. Thereafter the complainant got the tractor repaired from outside agency in warranty period. In the circumstances, no liability can be fastened on opposite parties as per condition of the warranty.

(3.) The District Forum after considering material on record dismissed the complaint holding that complainants have failed to establish any manufacturing defect in tractor. The opposite parties always remained ready and willing to repair and replace parts of the tractor under warranty and were ready to do free service, therefore, there was no "deficiency in service". Hence relying' on the decision of National Commission in Abhay Kumar Pandey V/s. Bajaj Auto limited, 1992 1 CPJ 88 and decision of Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Jaswant Singh Laxman Singh V/s. Gujarat Agro Industries, 1991 2 CPJ 237 and also decision of this Commission in Ashok Lalwani V/s. Premier Automobiles,1994 3 CPR 617 dismissed the complaint.