RAKESH KUMAR vs Parkshit Tractors

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.

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.

HEARD learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint, but learned State Commission committed error in modifying the order inspite of proof of delivery of old tractor; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that tractor was sold for lessor amount than the rate for new tractor and further submitted that there was no manufacturing defect in the tractor and as tractor was used for commercial purposes, complaint was not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of revision petition.

IT is admitted case between the parties that second -hand tractor was delivered by OP to the complainant. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that price of new tractor was Rs.4,30,000/ - whereas, this tractor was sold to complainant for Rs.4,00,000/ -. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that OP cheated complainant and delivered second -hand tractor instead of new tractor. As lessor price was charged from the complainant, obviously, new tractor could not have been delivered by the OP to the complainant.

AS far manufacturing defects are concerned, learned State Commission rightly observed that learned District Forum without any expert evidence regarding manufacturing defect committed mistake in directing replacement of the tractor and learned State Commission rightly modified order of District Forum.

LEARNED Counsel for the respondent submitted that as tractor was used for commercial purposes, complaint was not maintainable. In paragraph 9 of the complaint, complainant has mentioned that complainant could not use tractor for cultivation on his land and further mentioned that complainant used tractor on rent for cultivation and drilling of field of other agriculturist; so, incurred loss of Rs.1,10,000/ -. He has also placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in Suresh Baban Gadekar Vs. ICICI Bank & Ors. (R.P. No. 436 of 2011 decided on 16.4.2013) in which it was held that as tractor was used for earning rent by cultivating land of other persons, it amounted to commercial purposes, complaint was not maintainable before Consumer Forum. I agree with the law laid down in aforesaid judgment, but as OP has not filed any appeal against the order of State Commission, complaint cannot be dismissed on this ground.

I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and learned State Commission has rightly granted maximum relief to the complainant for getting it repaired to his satisfaction and further allowed Rs.35,000/ - as compensation, revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENT LY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.