Fabricated Inspection Report Cannot Prove Manufacturing Defect, Appeal Against Sonalika Tractors Dismissed: Delhi State Consumer Commission
Pranav B Prem
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed an appeal filed by the complainant against Amar Tractor and Auto Agencies and 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 State Commission upheld the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I (North District), Tis Hazari Courts, which had earlier dismissed the consumer complaint. The appeal was decided by a Bench comprising Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President, and Pinki, Judicial Member. The State Commission found no error or infirmity in the findings recorded by the District Forum and declined to interfere with its decision.
The case arose from a consumer complaint filed by Mange Ram, a farmer, who had purchased a Sonalika tractor manufactured by Sonalika International Tractors Ltd. from Amar Tractor and Auto Agencies on 6 May 2009 for a consideration of ₹4,70,000. The complainant alleged that despite repeated requests and payment of charges, the opposite parties failed to provide the Registration Certificate and Insurance Policy for the tractor. He further alleged that the tractor was suffering from multiple defects, including issues relating to the fuel pump, engine oil leakage, overheating of the engine, tyre slippage while turning, and excessive consumption of diesel.
It was the complainant’s case that engineers of the opposite parties inspected the tractor on several occasions, with the final inspection allegedly having taken place on 18 June 2010. According to the complainant, an inspection report was prepared on that date noting manufacturing defects in the tractor. As the alleged defects were not rectified, a legal notice dated 27 July 2010 was issued seeking rectification and compensation of ₹2,00,000. When no satisfactory response was received, the complainant approached the District Forum seeking replacement of the tractor or, in the alternative, refund of the purchase price along with compensation.
The District Forum, after examining the pleadings and evidence, dismissed the complaint on 31 July 2017, holding that the complainant had failed to establish any manufacturing defect through reliable expert evidence. Aggrieved by this decision, the complainant preferred the present appeal before the State Commission.
Before the State Commission, the dealer, Amar Tractor and Auto Agencies, denied the existence of any manufacturing defect and contended that the alleged inspection report dated 18 June 2010 was a fabricated document. It was submitted that the issues complained of were minor running or maintenance-related problems attributable to misuse and irregular servicing. Sonalika International Tractors Ltd. also denied the allegations and relied on the affidavit of its Senior Engineer, who stated that upon inspection, no manufacturing defect was found and that the problems reported were minor in nature and capable of rectification. The manufacturer further pointed out that the complainant had failed to produce any independent expert or technical evidence to prove a manufacturing defect.
Upholding the findings of the District Forum, the State Commission observed that the inspection report dated 18 June 2010, which formed the foundation of the complainant’s case, was wholly unreliable. The Commission noted that the report did not bear the signatures of any of the engineers who were claimed to have conducted the inspection and was instead shown to have been signed by a third person. It further noticed that the report was addressed to one of the engineers who was himself stated to be part of the inspection team. The Commission also found that the language used in the report did not reflect the standard expected from qualified engineers, which raised serious doubts about its authenticity. On these grounds, the Commission agreed with the District Forum that the inspection report was a fabricated document and could not be relied upon for any purpose.
The State Commission also concurred with the District Forum’s finding that the complainant had failed to prove any manufacturing defect through expert or technical evidence. On the contrary, the affidavits filed by the respondents and the records of workshop inspections indicated that the tractor was suffering only from minor running and maintenance issues attributable to misuse and lack of proper servicing, including failure to maintain adequate water levels in the radiator. The affidavits produced to suggest that the tractor was second-hand were also rejected, as they introduced a new case beyond the original complaint and were unsupported by any documentary proof establishing the deponents’ employment with the dealer.
Finding no deficiency in service on the part of either the dealer or the manufacturer, the State Commission held that the appeal was devoid of merit. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I (North District), Tis Hazari Courts, rejecting the consumer complaint, was affirmed.
Cause Title: Mange Ram v. M/s Amar Tractor and Auto Agencies & Anr.
Case No: First Appeal No. 464 of 2017
Coram: Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President, and Pinki, Judicial Member
