ESCORTS TRACTOR LTD Vs. RAJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 02-04-2012 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (in short, 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 720 of 2006 Escorts Tractor Ltd. Vs. Rajinder Singh & Anr., by which while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent no. 1 purchased tractor from opposite party no. 1/respondent no. 2 manufactured by opposite party no. 2/petitioner on 18-06-2014 for a sum of Rs.3,60,840/-. At the time of purchase complainant was assured about good quality of tractor but on account of manufacturing defects in the tractor it started to give trouble from the beginning. It was further alleged that its color was defective so it was second hand tractor. Complainant approached opposite party no. 1 for replacement of tractor but it was not replaced and tractor was kept by opposite party no. 1 on 03-10-2004. Alleging deficiency on the party of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party no. 1 resisted complaint and submitted that new tractor without any manufacturing defect was given to the complainant and no color was defective. It was further submitted that complainant left tractor at premises of opposite party no. 1 but inspite of repeated requests it was not taken back by the complainant. On inspection by mechanic of opposite party no. 1, tractor was found in working condition and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Opposite party no. 2 resisted complaint and submitted that new tractor without any manufacturing defect was given to the complainant and three services were also provided and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed opposite parties to pay Rs.3,60,840/- with 9% p.a. interest. Appeal filed by the opposite parties was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order, against which this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.