MANAGER, EICHER TRACTOR LTD. vs Hardayal

ALL these three appeals arise from the same order of District Forum, Bharatpur dated 11.3.94 passed in Complaint Case No. 145/92.

COMPLAINANTS Hardayal and Ramdayal had filed a complaint before the District Forum, Bharatpur on 15.7.92 alleging that they had purchased an Etcher Tractor from M/s. Roop & Singh Kumher Gate, Bharatpur after taking a loan from Punjab National Bank, Bharatpur. This tractor was purchased on 7.5.85. The complainants alleged that a guarantee of one year was given by Eicher Tractors Ltd. to remove any defect in the tractor free of cost. According to the complainants, after taking delivery of the tractor, the engine ceased and the lift ceased to function within 7 days. The complainants asked opposite party No. 3 to remove the defects. However, temporary repairs were made, but the parts were not changed. Several times the tractor was taken to the premises of opposite party No. 3 but it was not fully repaired. The complainants alleged that there was manufacturing defect in the tractor. The complainants also wrote to Eicher Tractor Ltd. and its officer Shri G.P. Gupta gave instructions on 26.8.86 to check the crank-shaft of the tractor. Shri G.P. Gupta had admitted that the tractor had ceased to function several times and this goes to show that there was defect in the engine and crank of the tractor. According to the complainants, the opposite parties did not remove the defects despite demands. The complainants also alleged that an amount of Rs. 6,800/-was deposited by them for spare parts, but this amount was not returned. The complainants were required to deposit an amount of Rs. 12,000/-which he had deposited. The tractor was repaired, but it became out of order after one day. Ultimately the complainants made representations to the Industry Minister of Government of India and the Chairman of the Eicher Tractor. The complainants further alleged that M/s. Roop & Singh got deposited from the complainant an amount of Rs. 5,000/-on 25.5.90 and another Rs. 5,000/-on 18.7.90. Despite that the tractor did not work properly. The complainants, therefore, filed the complaint claiming a compensation of Rs. 90,000/-. Before the District Forum, Etcher Tractor Ltd. filed its version. In their version the opposite parties stated that M/s. Roop & Singh was a dealer of Etcher Tractor Ltd. at Bharatpur. They showed their ignorance regarding purchase of tractor by the complainants from M/s. Roop & Singh. However, it is stated that when an Etcher Tractor is sold - a guarantee card is issued. It was denied that any defect occurred in the tractor within 7 days of its purchase. The complainants did not contact Eicher Tractor Company. It was further stated that later on when complaint was received by these opposite parties from the complainants, the tractor was got checked and there was no manufacturing defect. It was also stated that necessary repairs were duly carried out and the complainants were satisfied with that. These opposite parties had also informed the complainants that he may take the cost of the parts from M/s. Roop & Singh, Bharatpur and to the knowledge of these, opposite parties, the complainants took back the amount of the spare parts from opposite party No. 3. It was also pleaded that these opposite parties did not require the complainants to deposit an amount of Rs. 12,000/-. These opposite parties also do not know whether the complainants had deposited Rs. 5,000/-on 25.5.90 and Rs. 5,000/-on 18.7.90. Lastly, the opposite parties pleaded that complainants by letter dated 17.7.90 admitted that the tractor was working properly. These opposite parties also took an objection that the complaint was barred by limitation.

A version was also filed by M/s. Roop & Singh, opposite party No. 3 before the District Forum, Bharatpur. Opposite party No. 3 stated in its version that whatever minor defects were noticed in the tractor, they were removed during the guarantee period. Opposite party No. 3 also stated that the warranty was for a period of one year. The complainants had filed the complaint after 7 years of the purchase of the tractor and, therefore, it is barred by limitation. The District Forum, Bharatpur by its order dated 9.7.93 decided the objection taken by the opposite parties with regard to the complaint being filed within limitation. The District Forum Held that the complainants were making regular correspondence with the opposite parties regarding the engine of the tractor being defective. The opposite parties had not denied for carrying out the necessary repairs and had assured the complainants for changing the engine and they were demanding from the complainants amounts from time to time. Ultimately on 25.7.91 the opposite parties replaced the spare parts of the engine. On this basis, the District Forum Held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and complaint was within limitation. As against this order of District Forum, Bharatpur dated 9.7.93, the opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 i.e. M/s. Eicher Tractor Ltd. had filed Appeal No. 1564/94.

THE main complaint case was decided by the District Forum, Bharatpur on 11.3.94. By the order dated 11.3.94 the District Forum directed the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 in the complaint case to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-to the complainants and Rs. 500/-as costs of the complaint. Aggrieved by this order, the opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 viz. M/s. Eicher Tractor Ltd. has filed Appeal No. 348/94. Complainants have also filed Appeal No. 818/94 against the order of the District Forum, Bharatpur passed in the main complaint case wherein the complainants have prayed that the District Forum should have di reeled the opposite parties to refund the amount realised from the complainants and that the amount of Rs. 10,000/-awarded as compensation was less, because their tractor remained non-functional during the entire period and the complainants suffered damages to the extent of Rs. 90,000/-. It may be mentioned that in Appeal No. 818/94 filed by the complainants the Counsel for the complainants had appeared on previous dates, but none appeared today when this appeal was listed for arguments. Similarly in the two appeals filed by M/s. Eicher Tractor Company the complainants'' Counsel had not appeared. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for M/s. Eicher Tractor Company Ltd. in the three appeals and have perused the record.

IT is clear that the complainants had purchased Eicher Tractor on 7.5.85 from M/s. Roop & Singh, Bharatpur which was a dealer of M/s. Eicher Tractors. The complainants'' case is that a guarantee of one year had been given at the time of the sale of the tractor. According to the complainants, the tractor had started giving trouble after 7 days of the purchase of the tractor inasmuch as the engine of the lift ceased to function. When the complainants approached opposite party No. 3, only some repairs were carried out, but the tractor did not function thereafter. As already stated, this complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Forum, Bharatpur on 15.7.92 i.e. after 7 years of the purchase of the tractor by them. IT seems that in the year 1985 the complainants had also made representation to the Eicher Tractor Company. IT appears that on 26.8.86 the officers of the Tractor Company had written a slip to Shri G.P. Gupta to check the crank shaft dim, because certain parts were obsessed. This might, be the reason for the engine ceasing. IT, therefore, appears that there was some defect in the engine of the tractor. There is also a letter of Eicher Tractor Ltd. dated 4.7.87 addressed to complainant Ramdayal in reply to letter dated 18.4.87. In this letter M/s. Eicher Tractor Ltd. wrote to complainant Ram Dayal that the dealer M/s. Roop & Singh had informed that the amount deposited against components replaced in the tractor had not been collected by ''the complainants. The Company wrote to the complainant Ramdayal that Shri S.K. Gupta would be visiting Bharatpur dealership on 7.7.87 and that he may contact him together with the tractor. This goes to show that the dealer M/s. Roop & Singh had collected the amount of components from complainant No. 2. The Eicher Tractor had also written to M/s. Roop & Singh on 14.10.87 that they had received complaint regarding non-functioning of the tractor. Roop & Singh was requested to give the details of the warranty claims lodged by the dealer and pending for settlement. IT appears from this correspondence that the dealer had charged the cost of components during warranty period which was highly improper. The Eicher Tractor Company had, therefore, written to the complainants to collect the amount of components from the dealer. IT, thereafter, appears that the complainants made several representations to various authorities including the Industries Minister. He was required to deposit a total amount of Rs. 10.000/-which he deposited on 25.5.90 and 18.7.90 and ultimately it appears from a satisfaction note given by the complainants on 17.7.90 that the tractor was repaired and the complainants recorded satisfaction. IT would thus appear that since the year 1986 there was acknowledgement that there was defect in the tractor and correspondence ensured since then between the tractor Company and the complainants and dealer. The Eicher Tractor Company acknowledged that cost of the components were wrongly charged and the defect in the engine of the tractor was only removed on 17.7.90. In such circumstances, when there was defect in the said tractor from the very beginning and the Eicher Tractor Company also was of the view that the cost of the components had wrongly been charged and ultimately the engine of the tractor was repaired on 17.7.90 and that also after charging Rs. 10,000/-from the complainants, the cause of action accrued on 17.7.90 and the complaint was within limitation. The repair was made in acknowledgement of the defect in the engine of the tractor which existed within the guarantee period. The District Forum was, therefore, justified in awarding a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-as against opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 & 3 in the complaint. We do not think that the compensation amount should be increased. Both these Appeal Nos. 348/94 and 1564/94 are hereby dismissed. So also Appeal No. 818/94 is dismissed. We deprecate the attitude of Eicher Tractor Company that despite the fact that the engine was defective during the warranty period, it did not take speedy steps to remove the defects and caused inconvenience to the complainants for more than 4 years. Appeals Nos. 348, 1564 & 818/94 dismissed.