ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS Vs. RATTAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 has preferred this revision against impugned order dated 10.3.2009, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short, 'State Commission') in First Appeal No.140 of 2005.

(2.) Respondent/Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint on the allegations that he purchased Tractor Make 'Farmtrac', Chassis No.293907 and Engine No.297527 from petitioner for a sum of Rs.3,95,326/- on 23.09.2001, after obtaining bank loan. The said tractor was found defective and petitioner had replaced that tractor on 16.11.2001 and deducted an amount of Rs.1,95,000/- for the old tractor and had given tractor of the same mark 'Farmtrac' having Chassis No.273544 and Engine No.277291 on 16.11.2001 Rs.3,90,926/-. It is stated, that respondent had deposited one installment amounting to Rs.25,881/- of that tractor and it was found, that colour of that tractor had automatically changed and it was found it was second hand tractor. When cultivation was started with that tractor, it was found that it was defective and had started giving trouble. At the time of purchase, respondent had requested the petitioner to deliver papers of the tractor, but petitioner was not having original papers of the tractor in its custody. Therefore, for want of supply of the said papers, respondent could not apply for registration of the tractor. The respondent approached the petitioner to supply him new tractor, but he refused to admit the claim of respondent. Hence, consumer complaint was filed with the direction to the petitioner, to change the tractor make 'Farmtrac' and to pay Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-.

(3.) Petitioner in its written statement, denied that tractor supplied to the respondent was second hand one. It is stated, that respondent had himself selected the tractor from its main dealer Narian Auto Agency Opposite Party No.2 (before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur, for short, 'District Forum') vide Bill No. 405 dated 16.11.2001. It is alleged, that respondent had availed three services and never lodged any complaint regarding defects in the tractor. It is further stated, that respondent had given his old tractor to it and price of old tractor was adjusted in the price of tractor supplied to him. Further, 'No Objection' certificate was to be submitted by the respondent, but he failed to do so. Accordingly, documents of tractor purchased by respondent were withheld by the petitioner.