M D ATAUR RAHMAN Vs. AUTO TRACTORS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State Commission has declined to grant any relief to the Complainants on the ground that they have failed to establish that there was any material defect in the Tractors supplied to them by the first Respondent. It is true that the evidence adduced in respect of the matter on the side of the complainants was far from satisfactory and they had not specifically taken resort to the procedure contained in Section 13(1)(c) of the Act forgetting the tractors inspected by an expert, but, having regard to the fact that the Complainants are poor illiterate agriculturists and they did not have any assistance of Counsel before the State Commis¬sion, we are inclined to take a lenient view of the matter and deem it fit to grant an opportunity to the Complainants to make good the lacuna in the evidence, if possible, by taking resort to the proce¬dure under Section 13(1)(c) for getting the tractors examined by an expert.

(2.) WE accordingly allow these appeals and remand the cases to the State Commis¬sion with the direction that the complainants shall be afforded a fresh opportunity to have the tractors in question examined by an expert for the purpose of determining whether they suffer from any manufacturing defect. The cost of getting the trac¬tors inspected by an expert to be appointed by the State Commission would be borne, in the first instance, by the complainants. The State Commis¬sion will decide the matter afresh in the context of such further evidence as may be adduced before it. There will be no direction regarding costs. The Counsel for the appellant (complainant) makes it clear before us that the Complainants are not claim¬ing any relief as against the second respondent.