RAKESH KUMAR Vs. PARKSHIT TRACTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 11.08.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, Additional Bench (in short, 'the State Commission ') in Appeal No. 1831 of 2009 - M/s. Parkshit Tractor Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr. by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum allowing complaint was modified.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that complainants/petitioners approached OP No. 1/Respondent No. 1 for purchase of new tractor and submitted documents after completing all the formalities. On 3.3.2008, OP delivered tractor to the complainant and complainant later on came to know that OP delivered second -hand tractor manufactured in July, 2007. It was further alleged that earlier this tractor was sold to Man Singh, who returned it back due to some manufacturing defect. It was further alleged that lift system of the tractor is not functioning and oil and speedometer are also defective and there is leakage in the oil seals. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that tractor was sold on 1.3.2008 and after sale all the formalities were done by the complainant. It was further submitted that as Man Singh earlier purchaser was not able to pay tractor 's amount, tractor was taken back from him and complainant was aware of this fact. Any manufacturing defect was denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to replace tractor within one month or to refund entire price with 9% p.a. interest from the date of purchase till payment. Appeal filed by OP was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and learned State Commission modified order of District Forum and directed OP to remove all the defects in the tractor to the satisfaction of the complainant on production of tractor in the workshop of OP No. 1 and further directed to pay Rs.35,000/ - as compensation on account of unfair trade practice, etc., against which, this revision petition has been filed by complainant.

(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.