Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

ORISSA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CUTTACK
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.C. Mohapatra, President;
Dr. R.N. Panigrahi, Member; Smt. J. Patnaik, Member
NATABAR PRADHAN—Complainant
versus
REGIONAL MANAGER, ORISSA
AGRO INDUSTRIES & OTHERS—Opposite party
C.D. Case No. 16 of 1991—Decided on 3.8.1992

Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. P.K. Parida, Advocate.
For the Opp. Parties :M/s. B.L.N. Swamy, B.V.B. Das, A.K. Rath & Mr. B. Pant, Advocates.

The dealer and the manufacturer are liable for deficiency in service if they fail to provide proper advice and assistance to the complainant.

Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(g), 2(1)(i), 2(1)(o) - DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE - MANUFACTURER AND DEALER HELD LIABLE FOR DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE - COMPLAINANT ENTITLED TO OVERHAULING AND CHECK UP OF TRACTOR AT 50% COST.
Fact of the Case:

Complainant purchased an HMT 3511 tractor on 8.12.1989. The tractor developed defects within a year of purchase. The complainant reported the defects to the dealer and the manufacturer, but they failed to rectify the defects. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, which allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to make an overhauling and check up of the tractor, remove the defects, test the same by operating it in a muddy field, and hand over the same to the complainant. The opposite parties were also directed to bear 50% of the cost of spare parts and accessories required for the overhauling, check up, and test.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that both the dealer and the manufacturer were deficient in rendering service to the complainant. The court found that the dealer failed to advise the complainant to change the portal oil, which led to the first defect in the vehicle. The court also found that the manufacturer failed to comply with the complainant's simple request to check and operate the tractor in a muddy field to find out whether mud was entering into the bearing.
Issues: Whether there was a defect in goods and deficiency in service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dealer was deficient in rendering service to the complainant by failing to advise him to change the portal oil, which led to the first defect in the vehicle. The court also held that the manufacturer was deficient in rendering service to the complainant by failing to comply with his simple request to check and operate the tractor in a muddy field to find out whether mud was entering into the bearing.
Final Decision: The court allowed the complaint to the extent indicated above with the aforesaid direction.

ORDER

Mr. Justice S.C. Mohapatra, President—Defect in goods and deficiency in service are grievance, of the complainant in respect of his HMT 3511 tractor purchased on 8.12.1989.

2. Manufacturer opposite party No. 4 had undertaken as per the warranty conditions found in operator’s manual of the HMT tractor as well as HMT service policy that there will be after-sales service to all the purchasers through dealers for which terms and conditions are reflected in the warranty policy. Every purchaser gets free of cost after-sales service of the tractor of HMT 3511 made which deals with periodic maintenance and the details of maintenance of the tractor by the purchaser during warranty period through authorised dealers.

3. In the aforesaid back-ground, the dealer Orissa Agro Industries Corporation of which opposite party No. 1 is the Regional Manager of Berhampur and opposite party No. 2 its Chairman, gave free services to the complainant on 7.1.1990, 7.3.1990 and 7.6.1990. Before the fourth and final free service the tractor gave operational trouble on 15.8.1990. On information being sent to the office of opposite party No. 1, a machanic was deputed who checked and repaired the tractor. While it was operating the same defect was noticed being sound from the rear left wheel bearing. On 18.9.1990 mechanic checked and repaired the vehicle. Prior to it, on 18.8.1990 the final servicing was made. After the repair, the tractor was operated for 20 hours on 2 days. However, on 22nd August, 1990 at about 7 p.m. the tractor became immobile while returning back from the field giving sound from the rear wheel. When information was sent the very day a mechanic was deputed on 7.9.1990 after collecting the necessary spare part and repaired the vehicle. The third major filure was reported on 13.11.19V0 which was repaired during the night on 13th November to b e completed by 7.30 a.m. of 14th November, 1990. However, complainant not being satisfied with the repair undertaken left the tractor at the office of the dealer at Berhampur On 6.12.1990 through his driver. When it was sought to be inspected, the driver said that the same should be opened only in presence of the owner which was given in writing by the driver. Thereafter, the dealer sent messengers to the complainant to turn but the complainant did not come. Therefore, on 17.12.1990 and 21.12.1990 complainant was requested to visit the office for inspection. Complainant agreed to come on 22.12.1990 and on his reporting he was requested to explain the problems with some other details. Complainant could not reply stating that the repairs were carried in presence of his son and he can reply after consulting with his son. The Assistant Manager of the Corporation went to his residence and obtained a letter in reply which was not satisfactory since all the points were not replied. When complainant was asked on 24.12.1990 about his final desire, he replied on 16.1.1991 that he required major check up and change in rear wheel and self-starter and checking the mud from entering into the bearing while working in muddy field. Thereafter complainant was advised on 19.1.1991 to take delivery of the tractor as no defect was found in both the rear wheels and the self-starter which was checked on 22.12.1990. Thereafter complainant addressed a letter to the manufacturer at Chandigarh on basis of which the. dealer was advised to contact the complainant. On 8.2.1991 complainant was called to the workshop of the dealer to sort out his grievances. The tractor was thoroughly inspected by the staff of the dealer in presence of complainant’s son, lubrication oil in both the portals (rear wheels) was drained out and measured. The same was almost half litre on each side, and that too in extremely dirty condition whereas it should have been one and a half litre in each side as per standard norms. Being of the opinion that it was never replaced earlier, the fact was informed to the. complainant on 11.2.1991. On receiving le

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis