MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FARM Vs. SUMIT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents, as detailed above, under Sec. 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dtd. 30/11/2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in First Appeal (FA) No. 752 of 2016 in which order dtd. 13/6/2016 of Sonepat District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum ) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 301 of 2015 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dtd. 30/11/2017 of the State Commission

(2.) While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP No.2 ) was Appellant and the Respondent No.1 (hereinafter also referred to as 'Complainant') and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were also respondent No.2 to 4 in the said FA No. 752 of 2016 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was OP No.2, Respondents No.1 was Complainant and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were OP Nos.1, 3 and 4 before the District Forum in the CC No. 301 of 2015. Notice was issued to the Respondents on 27/2/2018. Petitioner filed Written Arguments / Synopsis on 5/1/2023 and Respondent No.1 filed Written Arguments / Synopsis on 21/12/2022.

(3.) Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that Complainant purchased a tractor vehicle Mahindra Arjun 605 D1 on 4/11/2014 from Respondent No.2 ( Vijay Agro Engineering Works), an authorized dealer of the Petitioner for a consideration of Rs.7,30,000.00. The tractor vehicle was purchased for earning his livelihood by using for agricultural purposes. Complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,30,000.00 in cash and remaining amount, which was to be paid in six monthly installments of Rs.1,00,000.00 each, was financed from Respondent No.3 herein ( Magma Fincorp Ltd.). At the time of purchase, the complainant was provided manufacturer warranty for a period of 12 months or 1000 operational hours of the tractor from the date of purchase. After seven days from the date of purchase, the tractor was taken to the workshop of respondent no.2 on 11/11/2014 for routine first service and defects in the battery and lift were pointed out by the complainant. The defect in the lift was removed but the complainant was asked to continue using the tractor with defects in the battery. When the complainant took the tractor to the workshop of respondent no.2 on 1/12/2014 for service, it was brought to their notice that tractor vehicle was not taking the required load and also pointed out other defects in the vehicle. The defects were not rectified and complainant was given assurance that defects would be removed at the time of next service.