JAGDAMBA TRACTORS Vs. LAV KUSH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/opposite party has filed the present revision petition under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as 'Act') against order dated 21.10.2005 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna (for short as, 'State Commission') vide which (First Appeal No. 542 of 2004) of thepetitioner's appeal was dismissed and order of District Forum was sustained.

(2.) Brief facts are that Respondent/ Complainant had filed a consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Act against the petitioner on the allegations that he had purchased a tractor from the petitioner after arranging loan from a private financer. Since the next day of the purchase of the tractor, the Hydrolic of tractor stopped working. In spite of complaint made by the respondent, the same was not replaced. This caused pecuniary loss and mental harassment to the respondent and his agriculture work also suffered. The cost of Hydrolic was Rs.70,000.Respondenthasprayed for Rs. 70,000 being cost of the Hydrolic and Rs. 25,000 as damages.

(3.) Petitioner in its written statement has admitted that the tractor in question was purchased by the respondent from it. However, no complaint, either oral or in writing, was made by the respondent with regard to the defects or non-performance of the tractor. After gettingnotice from the District Forum, petitioner took immediate steps and called the engineer concerned from Patna and got the tractor examined, particularly the hydrolic part, which was found to be in order. Hence, there is no deficiency on its part.