Delhi State Consumer Commission Dismisses Appeal Against Sonalika Tractors, Finds Inspection Report Fabricated

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed an appeal filed against M/s Amar Tractor and Auto Agencies and M/s Sonalika International Tractors Ltd., holding that the inspection report relied upon by the complainant was a fabricated and unreliable document and that no manufacturing defect in the tractor was established through credible expert evidence.

The Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Pinki (Judicial Member), upheld the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I (North District), Tis Hazari Courts, which had dismissed the consumer complaint.

Brief Facts

The complainant, Mange Ram, purchased a Sonalika tractor manufactured by M/s Sonalika Inter-national Tractors Ltd. (OP No. 2) from M/s Amar Tractor and Auto Agencies ((OP No. 1) on 06 May 2009 for a consideration of ₹4,70,000.

It was alleged that despite repeated requests and receipt of payment, the opposite parties failed to provide the Registration Certificate and Insurance Policy for the tractor. The complainant further alleged that the tractor suffered from multiple defects, including fuel pump issues, engine oil leak-age, engine overheating, tyre slippage while turning, and excessive diesel consumption.

The complainant claimed that engineers of the opposite parties inspected the tractor on several oc-casions, with the final inspection allegedly conducted on 18 June 2010, following which a report detailing the defects was prepared. As the defects were not rectified, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 27 July 2010, seeking rectification and compensation of ₹2,00,000. With no response forthcoming, a consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission seeking replacement of the tractor or, alternatively, refund of the purchase price along with compensation.

The District Commission dismissed the complaint, holding that the complainant failed to establish any manufacturing defect through reliable expert evidence. Aggrieved, the complainant preferred the present appeal before the State Commission.

Submissions of the Opposite Parties

The dealer, M/s Amar Tractor and Auto Agencies, denied the existence of any manufacturing de-fect and submitted that the alleged inspection report was a fabricated document. It was contended that any issues faced by the complainant were minor running or maintenance-related problems at-tributable to misuse and irregular servicing.

M/s Sonalika International Tractors Ltd. submitted that its Senior Engineer inspected the tractor and found no manufacturing defect. It was argued that the problems reported were minor in nature, resulted from poor maintenance, and were capable of rectification. The manufacturer further pointed out that the complainant failed to produce any independent expert evidence to establish a manufacturing defect.

Findings of the Commission

Upholding the District Commission's order, the State Commission observed that the inspection re-port dated 18.06.2010, relied upon by the complainant, was wholly unreliable. The Commission noted that the report did not bear the signatures of the alleged inspecting engineers and was instead shown to have been signed by a third person. Further, the report was addressed to one of the engi-neers who was himself stated to be part of the inspection team.

The Commission also found that the language used in the report raised serious doubts about its au-thenticity, observing that the wording did not reflect the standard expected from qualified engi-neers. In view of these inconsistencies, the Commission concluded that the inspection report was a fabricated document and could not be relied upon for any purpose.

The Commission further held that the complainant failed to establish any manufacturing defect through expert or technical evidence. On the contrary, affidavits filed by the respondents and rec-ords of workshop inspections demonstrated that the tractor suffered only from minor running and maintenance issues attributable to misuse and lack of proper servicing, including failure to main-tain adequate water levels in the radiator.

The affidavits filed to support the allegation that the tractor was second-hand were also rejected, as they introduced a new case beyond the original complaint and were unsupported by any documen-tary proof of the deponents' employment with the dealer.

Finding no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the State Commission dis-missed the appeal and declined to interfere with the District Commission's order.

Case Title

Mange Ram v. M/s Amar Tractor and Auto Agencies & Anr.

First Appeal No. 464 of 2017

Click Here To Read/Download Order