JAI SINGH vs HARYANA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD.

WHETHER the tractor supplied to the complainant by the opposite parties suffered from inherent manufacturing defects from the very inception ? This is the solitary factual issue in this complaint.

THE facts merit notice with utmost brevity. Shri Jai Singh, purchased one Escort-325 tractor from M/s. Haryana Agro Industries Corporation on the 30th of November, 1991 for a sum of Rs. 1,28,532/-. It is alleged in the complaint that at the time of the delivery of the aforesaid tractor there was only one tractor of Escort-325 in the stock of the opposite party No. 1 and therefore, he was prevailed upon to take the delivery thereof despite some defects therein on the assurance that the same would be replaced by another Tractor Escort-325. The complainant has listed six marginal defects in the said tractor and the gravamen thereof is that subsequently the opposite party No. 1 refused to replace the tractor in consonance with the alleged assurance. Consequently he approached the manufacturers M/s. Escort Limited and since he did not get the redress of replacement from either of the opposite parties, the present complaint was preferred seeking replacement or refund of the price of the tractor along with Rs. 65000/- as damages. Somewhat belatedly it was averred in the end of the paragraph No. 6 that at the time of original delivery another unspecified person had also accompanied the complainant.

In the written statement filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 1, two preliminary objections were taken to which reference is now unnecessary because they stand separately disposed of and rejected by our detailed order dated the 3rd of March, 1993 which apparently, has not been challenged by way of appeal or revision. On merits the firm stand of the opposite party No. 1 is that on the 26th of November, 1991 they had received three Escort-325 Tractors out of which one was sold earlier and two were in stock on the material date of the 30th of November, 1991 when the complainant is stated to have taken delivery of one of them on being fully satisfied with the same. It is the firm stand that the said tractor was in perfect good condition and there was consequently no question whatsoever of giving any assurance of replacement etc. This stand is sought to be backed up with the relevant document 0.1 /l and Annexure 0.2/2. It is repeatedly asserted that the complainant had at no stage made any grievance of the tractor being defective either orally or in writing before filing of the complaint. It is further the case that on receiving the notice from this Commission the utmost and repeated efforts were made to rectify whatever marginal defect there was in the tractor and the same was tested in the field to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. Reliance was placed on the reports of the Supervisor mechanic Annexure 0.1/3. In reply to para No. 6 it is stated in terms that one Sh. Sadhu Ram had accompanied him at the time of delivery and he put his thumb impression in token thereof without specifying any defect and the subsequent allegations are labelled as totally baseless. All allegations of any financial loss to the complainant or liability on the part of the opposite party is denied.

IN the written statement filed by opposite party No. 2 the reply on merits is virtually on identical terms with those of opposite party No. 1. On behalf of the complainant replications were filed to these written statements reiterating the complainant''s stand. In support of his case the complainant has chosen to rest himself content with his own self-serving affidavit which is more or less a carbon copy of the complaint with further elaboration. Apart from the same, fragmentary documentary evidence was placed on the record. The complainant was cross-examined on behalf of the opposite party and had to concede that he had taken the purported certificate about the defects from M/s. Pal Tractor Workshop only once. It was specifically put to him that in fact there were two tractors at the time of the delivery and he had taken his choice of the best one there from which was free from all defects. Further it was put to him that no promise for replacement was made by anyone of the opposite parties at any time.

ON the other hand the opposite party No. 1 put in the affidavit evidence of Sh. D.N. Arora, who is Assistant Engineer In charge, Farmers Service Centre and also of Sh. Jagdish Chander, Mechanic of the said Centre at Karnal and another affidavit of Sh. Kartar Chand, Supervisor of the same Centre at Karnal. All these affidavits categorically denied on oath any defect in the tractor and indeed averred to the removal of its routine wear and tear to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. In the cross-examination of three deponent nothing worthwhile could be elicited in favour of the complainant and indeed the same boomrangs against his case. Sh. Jagdish Chander stated that the tractor was checked in the field and pulled full load without any difficulty. The stand that the complainant had taken his choice out of two tractors got butressed from the cross-examination of these witnesses. Further documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the opposite parties and the authenticity of the same was not at all challenged by the complainant. Mr. P.C. Chaudhary, the learned Counsel for the complainant finding himself bereft of any firm factual foundation, at first contended that the solitary affidavit of the complainant himself should be accepted as the gospel truth. Further finding himself on unsure ground, primal reliance was on hardly relevant precedent in 1991 CPC I 167 M/s. Alankar Cycle Market v. Sri V.R. Srinivasa Desik and 1991 CPC I 302 Jaide v Prasad Singh v. Auto Tractor Ltd. We regret our inability to find any merit in the aforesaid submission both as a matter of fact or law. As noticed at the out set the gut question herein is the purely factual one namely, whether it has been established that the supplied tractor was having inherent manufacturing defects requiring replacement. On the present record, there is a woeful lack of evidence to support and sustain the complainant''s case even remotely. The core of the complainant''s case was that on the material date of the 31st of November, 1991, there was only one tractor in the stock of the opposite party No. 1 and he had taken delivery on an oral assurance of replacement. This stand is now belied and, in any case both by his own evidence as also by the affidavit testimony led on behalf of the opposite parties. In the first instance the version that the consumer would accept delivery of something so expensive like a tractor having manufacturing defect on the basis of an oral assurance is itself unworthy of credence. However this is further belied by the unchallenged Annexure 0.1/1 which is the photo copy of the stock register showing the receipt and sale of tractors by M/s. Haryana Agro Industry Corporation. This is further corroborated by Annexure 0.1 /0.2 dated the 3rd of December, 1991 apparently showing the sale of the 3rd Tractor. This conclusively shows that at the time of delivery to the complainant there were two Escort-325 tractors of identical make out of which the complainant took his choice. This would give the lie-direct to the very inception of the complainant''s case.

IT is then curious that the complainant himself suggested his companion without giving the name of such person who allegedly accompanied him at the time of the delivery. Surprisingly he neither named such person in support of his version nor did put in his affidavit to buttress his case. On the contrary the opposite party established that the delivery document was attested by Sadhu Ram apparently to the full satisfaction of the complainant with regard to the tractor supplied.

.NOW apart from the above the complainant has chosen to rest his case only on his self-serving affidavit which seems shaken by his cross-examination. No credible evidence worth the name supports his case for which he has only himself to blame. Obviously the interested oral evidence of the complainant can not be accepted as a gospel truth. It is significant that the admitted position herein is that there was not a little of documentary evidence to even indicate that before the filing of the present complaint the complainant had earlier made a grievance of a defective tractor to either the supplier or the manufacturers. Mr. Chaudhary attempted to explain the same on the ground that the complainant was a some what simple villager. In our country this by itself can not be accepted as a substitute for total lack of proof. What next calls for notice is the fact that the core of the matter here is with regard to inherent manufacturing defects in the tractor. Obviously these can not be established by the mere ipsi-dixit of the complainant himself. This can only be done by some expert mechanic''s testimony to back up the allegation. The same is singularly lacking on the present record. A fragmentary reliance was on Annexure P. 4 which purported to be the observations of one Dharam Pal, of Pal Tractor Workshop, Indiri, Karnal. Significantly the said unproved document is on a plain piece of paper bearing a rubber stamp. There is no evidence worth the name whether there is any such concern at all of this name and style. Peculiarly the document bears no date or address. The person whose purported signatures of Dharam Pal appear thereon was not ever remotely attempted to be examined on behalf of the complainant. Indeed the said document is not even worth the paper on which it is written. It inevitably follows that there is not the least expert testimony of inherent manufacturing defect. It deserves highlighting that the complainant was insisting on the total replacement of the tractor even in the context of a vaccum of testimony on this material point.

On the other hand the opposite parties have put in the testimony Sh. D.N. Arora, Kartar Chand and Jagdish Chander by way of rebuttal. Their cross-examination by the complainant has only strengthened the weight of their evidence. Consequently there is no reason to suspect their forthright testimony and it bears notice that all of them have a technical or mechanical back ground which lends credence and weight to their word.

IN the course of argument it transpired as the admitted position that the complainant alongwith the warranty has a free service card with three free services, and he availed to all the without at any stage complaining or making any grievance of a manufacturing defect. IN any case the with-holding of the service card and the availing of free service can not but lead to an adverse inference against the complainant. It seems unnecessary if not wasteful to further elaborate the matter. It is somewhat manifest that the complaint has been wholly unable to even remotely establish his allegation of a manufacturing defect in the tractor purchased by him. On that factual conclusion the complaint must necessarily fail.

IT remains to advert in fairness to the learned Counsel for the complainant''s insistence on the precedent notice earlier. IT first suffices to say that in a purely factual controversy precedent has little or no relevance. In any case it may be mentioned that the reliance of the learned Counsel on M/s. Alankar Cycle Market v. Sri V.R. Srinivasa Desik (supra) is wholly misplaced. In that case the admitted position was that the bicycle supplied was defective which had developed cracks in its frame, which in fact had been replaced by the supplier. Obviously here the position is exactly the opposite and the said judgment cannot, therefore, at all aid or advance the case of the complainants. What has been said on this count applies equally to Jaide v Prasad Singh v. Auto Tractor Ltd. (supra). For the fore-going reasons this complaint must necessarily fail and is hereby dismissed. However, we decline to burden the consumer-complainant with any costs. Complaint dismissed without costs. ______________