Bajaj Tempo Ltd vs Ajwant Singh

THE complainant purchased one Tempo 0X45 tractor from opposite party No.1, M/s. Gill Brothers, on 27 -12 -1999 for a consideration of Rs.3,10,000/ -. The aforesaid tractor had been manufactured by the petitioner -Bajaj Tempo Ltd. which was arrayed as opposite party No.2 in the complaint. It was represented to the complainant that the vehicle carried warranty of 24 months. However, it started giving problems from January 2000 itself. The joints of the mudguard became loose after the tractor had run for only about 35 hours and the engine started giving white smoke. In the month of March/April 2000, at the time of service of the vehicle it was noticed that the paint of the tractor was peeling off on account of pressure of water and its gear box was defective, since the gear could not move freely. CL oil was also found leaking from the engine and the mobile oil also started decreasing by half a liter within 15 hours. It was also noticed that the tractor was of 1998 model and had been changed to 1999 model by replacing the tyres. Alleging deficiency in services the complainant approached the Bhatinda District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short, the District Forum), seeking replacement of the tractor or in the alternative refund of the price of the tractor with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. He also sought damages amounting to Rs.1,00,000/ -, besides cost of the complaint.

THE complaint was resisted by the manufacturer -M/s. Bajaj Tempo Ltd. as well as by the dealer -M/s. Gill Brothers. The manufacturer -Bajaj Tempo Ltd., however, stated that the aforesaid tractor was a 1998 model tractor having been sold by them on 11 -06 -1998. It was also stated by them that the vehicle carried warranty only for 12 months and not for 24 months. The manufacturer further alleged that on receipt of the complaint from the purchaser their representative had visited him and the purchaser/complainant was satisfied with the repairs. It was also claimed in the reply of the manufacturer that they had directed the dealer -M/s. Gill Brothers to replace the fender and gear shifting cover and had also sent the aforesaid parts to the dealer but the same were not received by the dealer which had discontinued the dealership in the meanwhile. It was also stated in the reply that the defect in the shifting of the gear was removed by their service engineer, Mr. Jasdeep Singh.

VIDE order dated 31 -10 -2001, the District Forum directed the opposite parties i.e. the manufacturer as well as the dealer to replace the tractor or refund the price paid by the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. They were also directed to pay Rs.20,000/ - as compensation and Rs.1,000/ - as cost to the complainant. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum the manufacturer as well as the dealer filed two separate appeals. The appeals having been dismissed by the State Commission vide impugned order dated 04 -10 -2007, the manufacturer -M/s. Bajaj Tempo Ltd. is before us by way of this revision petition. The dealer -M/s Gill Brothers, however, has not challenged the order passed by the State Commission. It would be pertinent to note here that while dismissing the appeal filed by Gill Brothers, the State Commission imposed punitive cost of Rs.50,000/ - upon it for cheating the complainant, by selling a 1998 model tractor as a 1999 model tractor.

THE learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the terms and conditions contained in the letter of allotment whereby M/s. Gill Brothers was appointed as a dealer of the petitioner -company for sale of tractors. Clause (m) of the letter of allotment shows that the relationship between the manufacturer and the dealer was on Principal to Principal basis and no relationship of agency of any sort was sought to be created. This clearly shows that the petitioner -Bajaj Tempo Ltd. is not liable for the acts and misdemeanor and/or misrepresentation committed by its dealer -M/s. Gill Brothers. As a result, the petitioner -company would not be liable to the complainant on account of a 1998 model tractor having been sold with a misrepresentation that it was a 1999 model tractor or on account of the said tractor having been re -painted before it was delivered to the complainant.

COMING to the defects in the vehicle, our attention is drawn to report submitted by Mr. Jasdeep Singh, SSE of the petitioner -company, after attending to the complaint made by the purchaser -Mr. Ajwant Singh. A perusal of the aforesaid report would show that oil seal of the gear box was found leaking at the time of inspection by representative of the company and the customer was advised to take the tractor to the workshop for replacement of the oil seal. It further shows that the representative of the company had taken, along with him, the gear shift cover for the purpose of replacing the defective gear shift cover but the complainant refused to get the aforesaid part replaced, presumably because he wanted replacement of the vehicle and not replacement of a particular component. The representative of the petitioner -company also arranged for repair of the tractor at Malerkotla dealership. However, admittedly the complainant did not take the tractor to Malerkotla, since that place is about 150 kms. from his village. In our view, the complainant ought to have taken the tractor to Malerkotla dealership, since M/s. Gill Brothers had ceased to be the dealers of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. in the meanwhile and this is not the case of the complainant that there was some other dealership of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. at a place nearer than Malerkotla.

A perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner -company further shows that when the representative of the company Mr. Jasdeep Singh visited the complainant on 15 -01 -2000, no problem with respect to the tractor was reported to him. However, when he visited the complainant on 21 -02 -2000, he reported minor leakage from gear box cover, fender welding was found open from one place and gear lever jumped some times. The gasket was replaced and the dealer was asked to re -weld and paint the fender though the customer insisted on its replacement. Some minor adjustment of the gear lever jump was done. The dealer was directed to order fender and gear shifting cover with new modified one for replacement on the tractor of the complainant on goodwill basis. It was also noted that the aforesaid rectifications were minor and did not affect the working of the tractor. When the representative of the company visited the complainant on 16 -04 -2000, it was noticed that the hour meter had stopped and the speed cable had broken. The dealer was asked to replace the same. The dealer was also warned to improve its services. When the representative of the company again visited the complainant on 10 -06 -2000, it was noticed that the gear was not shifting. By that time, the tractor had run for more than 650 hours. The spring of gear shift lever was found broken and was replaced. The next visit took place on 15 -06 -2000. At that time, lower link pin was found broken. The pin was extracted and repaired at the local workshop. It was noted that the breakage of the pin had not hindered the operation of the tractor. When the representative of the petitioner -company visited the complainant on 31 -08 -2000 along with the mechanic of Malerkotla dealer for minor repairs/adjustments at complainant''s own place, the customer was not ready to get the tractor repaired. The modified gear shift cover had been brought from Malerkotla for replacement but the complainant refused to get the same replaced.

IT would thus be seen that, though the tractor did develop some minor snags, and required minor repairs/replacement, no manufacturing defect in the tractor was acknowledged by the representative of the petitioner -company. No expert opinion was produced by the complainant before the District Forum to prove that the tractor sold to him had some inherent manufacturing defect in it. In any case, in our view, none of the snags/problems noted by the representative of the petitioner -company can be said to be a manufacturing defect. As per the warranty conditions, the manufacturer could at its option either repair the part supplied or replace it free of charge, in case the part was recognized to be defective. In the case before us, the representative of the petitioner -company carried out the repairs required from time to time. The gear shift cover which needed replacement was also taken to the place of the complainant but he refused to get the same replaced. Therefore, no deficiency in the services provided by the petitioner -company could be proved by the complainant. No component except the gear shift cover and fender, required replacement and both the above referred parts were duly brought to the place of the complainant but he declined to get them replaced because he wanted replacement of the tractor and was not satisfied by replacement of the parts which were found to be requiring replacement. In these circumstances, the State Commission, in our view was not justified in directing replacement of the tractor or refund of the price paid by the complainant, by the manufacturer of the tractor. Since no defect or shortcoming in the services provided by the petitioner -company could be made out, there was no justification for awarding any compensation against it.

FOR the reasons stated herein above, the impugned order passed by the State Commission, to the extent it pertains to the petitioner -Bajaj Tempo Ltd. is hereby set aside. However, the order of the State Commission to the extent it is directed against the dealer has become final on account of the said dealer, M/s. Gill Brothers, having not challenged it by way of a revision petition or otherwise, and, therefore, is capable of being executed in accordance with law.