Narender vs International Tractors Ltd.

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') is directed against order dated 5.4.2003, passed by District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 416/2002 entitled Mr. Narender v. International Tractors Ltd. & Anr.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant Mr. Narender had filed a complaint under Section 12 of ''the Act'' before the District Forum averring therein that the appellant had purchased a tractor, manufactured by respondent No. 1, from respondent No. 2 vide Delivery Challan No. 301 dated 30.5.2001 for Rs. 2,52,000/-. It was stated that the appellant had given his old tractor together with a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- to the respondents as a sale consideration for the tractor so purchased by him. THE grievance of the appellant in the complaint filed by him before the District Forum in nutshell was that the tractor so purchased by him, right from the very beginning, was defective and was having technical/manufacturing defects regarding which the appellant made several complaints to the respondent but the problem in the tractor continued. It was alleged that the tractor in question also continued to consume more oil/lubricant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent''s, the appellant in the complaint, filed by him, had prayed that the respondents be directed to change the engine of the tractor with a new engine and also to pay compensation and cost of litigation. The claim of the appellant in the District Forum aas resisted by the respondents and in the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the respondents, while denying the allegation, it was stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the tractor in question and as and when the complaints were received from the end of the appellant, the same were duly and timely attended to. In reply/written version, filed on behalf of the respondents, it was also stated that there was no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint, filed by the appellant, deserved to be dismissed.

The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that the appellant had failed to prove his case and that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents. On the basis of the above findings, the learned District Forum has dismissed the complaint, filed by the appellant.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On the basis of material on record, it is not in dispute that the tractor in question, manufactured by respondent No.1 was purchased by the appellant from respondent No. 2 for consideration. The only question requiring consideration is as to whether was there any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents in the given facts. The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that the appellant had failed to prove any manufacturing defect and there is no evidence on record nor any mechanical inspection by an expert whereas the respondents had filed an affidavit of technician. The onus to prove his case was on the appellant. During the course of arguments also we have put a specific query to the learned Counsel for the appellant as to whether any material was brought on record by the appellant to discharge the onus which was on him. However, no satisfactory reply to our above query could be given by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The fact, that the respondents had filed an affidavit of experts (technicians) in support of their contentions is also not specifically controverted by the learned Counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments. In the presence of the above facts, no fault can be found with the findings of the learned District Forum. The same in the given facts suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant is therefore devoid of substance. The same merits dismisal. Acordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.