NARENDER Vs. INTERNATIONAL TRACTORS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, filed by the appellant under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against order dated 5.4.2003, passed by District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi in Complaint Case No.416/2002 entitled Mr. Narender V/s. International Tractors Ltd. and Anr.

(2.) The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant Mr. Narender had filed a complaint under Sec.12 of 'the Act' before the District Forum averring therein that the appellant had purchased a tractor, manufactured by respondent No.1, from respondent No.2 vide Delivery Challan No.301 dated 30.5.2001 for Rs.2,52,000/-. It was stated that the appellant had given his old tractor together with a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- to the respondents as a sale consideration for the tractor so purchased by him. The grievance of the appellant in the complaint filed by him before the District Forum in nutshell was that the tractor so purchased by him, right from the very beginning, was defective and was having technical/manufacturing defects regarding which the appellant made several complaints to the respondent but the problem in the tractor continued. It was alleged that the tractor in question also continued to consume more oil/lubricant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent's, the appellant in the complaint, filed by him, had prayed that the respondents be directed to change the engine of the tractor with a new engine and also to pay compensation and cost of litigation.

(3.) The claim of the appellant in the District Forum aas resisted by the respondents and in the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the respondents, while denying the allegation, it was stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the tractor in question and as and when the complaints were received from the end of the appellant, the same were duly and timely attended to. In reply/written version, filed on behalf of the respondents, it was also stated that there was no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint, filed by the appellant, deserved to be dismissed.