BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: KRISHNA DISTRICT
AT MACHILIPATNAM
C.D. NO. 1 OF 2002
In the matter of :
Mallavolu Naga Venkata Nancharaiah .......Complainant
AND
M/s Mithra Tractor Company and Another ......Opposite Parties
WRITTEN ARGUMENTS FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.2
1. That the present complaint of the complainant is an abuse of the process of this
Hon’ble Forum. It is submitted that the contents of the complaint are false,
frivolous, vexatious and is liable to be dismissed under section 28 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986.
2. That the complaint is devoid of any material which would even remotely entitle the
complainant to seek relief from this Hon’ble Forum. The complainant has filed to
prove any deficiency against the answering respondents. The allegations made by
the complainant, in his complaint against the answering respondents, are frivolous
and vague in nature and do not relate to any specific defect in the vehicle which
could attribute any deficiency of service upon the answering respondents. It is thus
clearly evident that the complainant has approached this Hon’ble Forum with
malafide motives which do not deserve any adjudication from this Hon’ble Forum.
3. That the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has suppressed true
and correct facts with a clear attempt to derive unde and illegal benefits from this
Hon’ble Forum to which he is not entitle to. The complainant has himself admitted
that the said tractor was in a proper running condition and there as no trouble in the
said tractor till it completed three free services. After working, smoothly, and
having undergone three free trouble free services the complainant has filed this
present false and vexatious petition for the sole reason to derive illegal gains from
-2-
the answering respondents for escaping from any liability of having to render any
further expenses on the said tractor after the expiry of warranty period, which the
complainant would have accrued due to misuse of the tractor on part of the
complainant, especially by letting the said tractor repaired and tampered by the road
side mechanics besides using the same for commercial purpose.
4. That the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has himself
endorsed in the complaint petition, his entire satisfaction over the tractor and various
services rendered to it. The complainant is therefore stopped from raising false and
vexatious allegations that the respondents are guilty of deficiency in service.
5. It is submitted that the present complaint has been filed only to gain benefits of free
services and spares beyond the period of warranty. The complainant has abused the
process of this Hon’ble Forum. It is only after availing the benefit of all the free
services from the respondents the complainant has approached this Hon’ble Forum
with the present frivolous complaint. It is thus apparent that the complainant has, by
misusing the process of this Hon’ble Court is trying gain extension of the warranty
period for the tractor. It is a well settled law that what cannot be done directly
cannot be done indirectly. The complaint as such is not maintainable and is liable to
be dismissed as such. As submitted above the said tractor was used for commercial
purposes to which it was not meant for and was also subjected to tampering by road
side mechanics for which the answering respondents cannot be held liable.
6. Thus the answering respondent cannot be made liable for any deficiency that may be
caused by Respondent no.3. The present complaint is therefore bad in law and is
liable to be dismissed in favour of the answering respondent.
7. It is submitted that the complainant has approached this Hon’ble Forum with the
deliberate intention to illegally obtain warranty cover for his tractor for further
period by alleging vague defects so as to avoid paying for the service and spares for
his tractor at 1st respondent’s service station. The complainant who had been using
this tractor for commercial purposes during the free service period never complained
-3-
about the alleged defects in the vehicle. The modus-operandi of the complainant is
crystal clear as he has planned to use the tractor over the warranty period and then to
harass the respondents by filing the complaint under the act so as to ensure
continuation of the warranty period for his tractor on one pretext or the other.
8. As per the judgement of the National Commission reported in II CPJ 1993 at page
225 it is held that if there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the
manufacturer is only bound to repair the said defect in the vehicle by replacing the
parts but entire vehicle cannot be replaced with a new one. In the instant case, the
complainant had already got the vehicle registered n his name and has plied the
same both for commercial and agricultural purposes. Therefore he cannot now
claim that the vehicle is defective and he is entitled for replacement of the same.
9. Even assuming without admitting that there is some manufacturing defect in the said
vehicle of the complainant, then as per section 13 (c) of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986, the alleged defects in the vehicle should be determined by proper
laboratory as specified under the act and clause (d) of the said section requires the
Complainant to bear such costs for analysis of the alleged manufacturing defects by
the appointed laboratory. Therefore in the instant case the burden of proving the
defects in his vehicle is on the complainant, which he failed to do so. In view of the
above facts it is most respectfully prayed that the present complaint of the
complainant be dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Place: Vijayawada
Date: 13-12-2002. Counsel for the Respondent No. 2.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT
CONSUMER FORUM: KRISHNA
DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNAM
C.D. NO. 1/2002
Between:
Mallavolu Naga Venkata Nancharaiah
.........Complainant
AND
M/s Mithra Tractor Company &
Another .......Opposite Parties
WRITTEN ARGUMENTS FILED
ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT NO. 2
FILED ON:
FILED BY:
(Counsel for the Respondent No.2)
