HMT LTD Vs. PRADEEP SINGH BIJORI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS in this case i.e. HMT Limited and Sanjay Enterprises (its authorized dealer) have filed this revision petition against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) which ruled in favour of one Pradeep Singh (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) who was the original complainant before the District Forum.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the Respondent purchased a tractor from Sanjay Enterprises, authorized dealer of Petitioner No.1 through a bank loan of Rs.3,86,986/- with a warranty of one year. After the first service, this tractor started facing several problems and therefore, it was taken to the showroom wherein some spare parts of the engine found defective were changed and the tractor was returned to the Respondent. However, after some time it again stopped working and the problem continued because of which it had to be attended in the workshop on two or three occasions and the engine also had to be totally repaired. During inspection, the company engineer found rust and old spare parts in the tractor and the Respondent came to know that he had been sold an old tractor and that is why it did not function properly from the beginning. Respondent had to incur economic losses because he could not use the tractor and had to hire another tractor for his agricultural work. He, therefore, filed a complaint on grounds of deficiency in service before the District Forum, Sehore against the Petitioners. Petitioners denied the allegations and stated that whenever the tractor was brought to the showroom it was got repaired and handed over in good working condition and without any delay. THEre were no manufacturing defects. It was also denied that the Respondent had been sold an old tractor.

(3.) WHEN the case came up before this Commission on 10.09.2009, this Commission passed the following order: The challenge in this revision is to the order dated 6.10.2006 of State Commission dismissing appeal against the order of District Forum dated 28.6.2006 at admission stage. The documents at pages 17, 21, 22, 23 & 24 would show that engine number of the tractor allegedly supplied to the respondent by the petitioner was 3153. However, the Certificate of Registration and the Insurance Certificate would show that the number of the engine is 3150. Respondent alleges that he was sold an old tractor after charging money for a new tractor which fact is denied by the dealer and the manufacturer petitioner. Parties counsel state that Local Commissioner may be appointed to inspect the tractor in question and report about the engine number. In order to effectively decide the present revision, it is desirable that report regarding engine number is obtained. We, therefore, direct the District Forum concerned to appoint a Local Commissioner to inspect the tractor in question and to give report about the number of engine.