ESCORTS TRACTORS LTD. CO. vs GAJANAND

THE above mentioned two appeals have been filed by M/s. Escorts Tractors Ltd. Company and M/s. Shri Laxmi Industrial Company against the same order of District Forum, Baran dated 17.11.1994 passed in Complaint Case No. 132 of 1994 whereby the District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties appellants to pay to the complainant Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and to replace the engine of the tractor or pay the cost of the engine.

THE complainants Shri Gajanand and Suraj Mal had purchased a Ford Tractor-3610, 50HP on 30.11.1992 from M/s. Laxmi Industrial Company, Kota who was alleged to be dealer of M/s. Escorts Tractors Limited, Faridabad. Complainant''s case was that he had purchased this tractor after taking loan from Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Branch Mangrol Distt. Baran and had hypothecated his agricultural land against the loan. THE tractor was purchased for a price of Rs. 2,41,620.60. According to the complainant, the engine of the tractor was defective and on account of technical defect, it was consuming the engine oil several times excess. THE complainant wrote about this to M/s. Escorts Tractors Ltd. THE manufacturer had given one year''s guarantee and free service coupons. Services were got made but the complaint about excess consumption of engine oil continued. Upon complaint being made to M/s. Laxmi Industrial Company, an engineer came to the complainant''s village and tried to remove the defect but the defect continued. THE complainant had to incur Rs. 12,000/- for sowing his Rabi and Kharif crops by taking another tractor on hire. It was also stated that the complainant had incurred some expenses relating to change of oil filter, engine oil and piston rings and he was entitled to get back these amounts. With these averments, the complainant filed the complaint praying that the engine of the tractor may be got replaced or the complainant may be awarded the cost of the engine with interest @ 24% per annum. He had also claimed Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental distress and Rs. 30,000/- for economic losses. Both the opposite parties-appellants filed their version before the District Forum and they denied that there was any defect in the tractor. They had stated that the warranty extended for a period of one year or 100 hours of operation whichever was earlier. The warranty expired on 29.11.1993. The present complaint was filed on 18.12.1993 after the expiry of the warranty period. M/s. Laxmi Industrial Company stated that four free services were duly performed on 18.12.1992, 1.4.1993, 9.7.1993 and 29.9.1993. There was no technical defect in the engine. The complaints made by the complainant were duly attended. It was also stated that the complainant on 29.9.1993 had said that the consumption of oil in the engine was more. Consequently, piston rings and head gasket of the tractor were changed and the amount of sales tax amounting to Rs. 107.24 was charged from the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 had also sent its mechanic Hanif Khan on 7.12.1993 to the village of the complainant and found that the head gasket needed to be changed. The same was changed, thereafter no complaint was made regarding engine consuming more engine oil. M/s. Escorts Tractors Ltd., also raised objections that the tractor had been purchased by the complainant for commercial purposes and, therefore, he was not a consumer. It was also stated that in terms of the warranty, costs of air filter, oil filter and mobil oil are not covered. It was also stated that the relationship between the two opposite parties was that of principal to principal and not principal and authorised dealer. It also denied its liability.

The District Forum, Baran held that the complainant had a constant grievance that the engine was consuming much oil. This was also clear from the mechanic''s report dated 6.10.1993. The complainant had written on 10.10.1993 for removing the defect, but the same was not removed. The District Forum also held that the complainant was entitled to get Rs. 4,000/- which he had paid for oil filter and other expenses and engine oil. It was further held that the complainant was entitled to get Rs. 19,500/- as compensation for mental distress and Rs. 1,500/- as costs of the complaint. The District Forum, therefore, directed the opposite parties to pay a total amount of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the complain ant and also to change the engine of the tractor within one month or to pay cost of the engine with interest @ 18% per annum. Aggrieved by this order both M/s. Laxmi Industrial Company and M/s. Escorts Tractors have filed these two separate appeals.

WE have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the (record. The Warranty given by M/s. Escorts (Tractors Ltd. provided that the said manufacturer warrants to the Dealer each part of the tractor sold to the dealer to be free under normal usage and service from defects in material and workmanship, for a period of 12 months or 1000 hours of operation, whichever is earlier, from the date of sale to the original retail purchaser. The warranty was limited to replacement of such parts which shall be acknowledged by Escorts Tractors Ltd. or an authorised representative to be defective. It was also provided that the warranty shall not applied to normal maintenance services, such as engine tune-up, fuel system cleaning, wheel brake and clutch adjustments and normal replacement of service items like filters, fuel injectors, brake or clutch linings. Four free services were provided by M/s. Laxmi Industrial Company. The first service was done on 18.12.1992 when the tractor had run 67 hrs. At the time of this service, there was no complaint regarding the engine requiring excess engine oil. The complainant recorded upon the service card about satisfactory condition of the tractor. The next service was got done on 1.4.1993 when the tractor had run for 305 hrs. On this occasion, a complaint was made that the engine consumes more oil. Necessary repairs were carried out and the complainant received the tractor in satisfactory condition. The third service was got effected on 9.7.1993 when the tractor had run 642 hours. At this time, the complainant mentioned that the engine of the tractor was consuming oil. It appears from the cash memo of M/s. Shri Laxmi Industrial Company dated 9.7.1993 produced in the case that the said Company changed the head gasket of the tractor. The Company had not charged from the complainant the cost of the head gasket. It only charged Rs. 6.44 with respect to sales tax. The price of the head gasket was Rs. 161/- for which claim was made by Shri Laxmi Industrial Co. with manufacturers. It is, therefore, incorrect to say that the dealer had charged of price of the head gasket from the complainant. The complainant received tractor after service and after replacement of the head gasket. The last service was made on 27.9.1993 when the tractor had run 870 hrs. On this occasion also the complainant told that the oil consumption of the engine was more. On this occasion, piston rings and gasket head were changed free of cost. The bill of M/s. Shri Laxmi Industrial Co. dated 29.9.1993 goes to show that the complainant was only charged Rs. 107.24 with respect to sales tax. So far as the cost of the piston rings amounting to Rs. 2.519/- and cost of the gasket head Rs. 162/- are concerned, they were not charged from the complainant. It would, thus, appear that M/s. Laxmi Industrial Co. had twice changed the head gasket and had once changed piston rings without charging their cost from the complainant. The complainant received back the tractor after signing the endorsements that the tractor was received in satisfactory condition.

THE learned Counsel for the appellants showed to us portions from the printed booklet wherein the possible causes and remedy of excessive oil consumption are mentioned. Possible causes of excessive oil consumption are either that engine oil level was too high, or external oil leaked from engine, or worn valves or seals or head gasket not sealing or oil loss past the pistons and rings and lastly oil cooler leak. THE remedy for these causes are provided as ''reduce oil level'', ''renew gaskets/seals'' where necessary, ''replace worn valves'', ''renew gasket head'', ''renew rings'' and ''repair/replace oil cooler assembly''. THEse are the remedies as. against possible causes of excessive oil consumption. We have already stated that M/s. Shri Laxmi Industrial Co. had twice changed the head gasket free of cost. It had also changed the piston rings during four free service period. No cost was charged by M/s. Shri Laxmi Industrial Co. from the complainant for head gasket or piston rings. Thus, the remedies against excessive oil consumption were duly carried out free of cost during the warranty period. THE complainant has not established by any evidence that there was any manufacturing defect in the engine of the tractor. In the absence of manufacturing defect, the complainant was not entitled to replacement of the engine. Due required service of the tractor and the replacement of parts free of cost during the warranty period were carried out. So far as the cost of the oil filter and engine oil are concerned, they were not covered under warranty. THE complainant produced a writing written by one Ramesh Chand on 6.10.1993 where-in it is written that the tractor was checked by Ramesh Chand and it consumed 15 gms. engine oil in 2 hours. Ramesh Chand was not a technically qualified person and he has not even mentioned that there was any manufacturing defect in the engine of the tractor. Neither Ramesh Chand was examined and nor his affidavit was filed by the complainant. THE complainant having failed to establish manufacturing defect and necessary replacements having been done and the remedy prescribed to remove possible causes for excess consumption of oil having been duly carried out free of cost, the complainant was not entitled to get any compensation or replacement of the engine of the tractor. THE District Forum has also not found that there was any manufacturing defect in the tractor. THE order of the District Forum, therefore, cannot be sustained. Both these appeals are allowed. The order of the District Forum, Baran dated 17.11.1994 is set aside and Complaint Case No. 132 of 1994 filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs throughout. Appeals allowed.