HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)        

1.      The complainant/respondent purchased a tractor make Escorts from the petitioner on 10.09.1992.  The said tractor carried a warranty of one year.  The case of the complainant/respondent, as disclosed in the complaint filed before the District Forum is that the said tractor suffered from the following defects:

(i) tractor made back compressor,

(ii) consumed excessive mobil oil,

(iii) sprinkled an excess of mobil oil from the tepid cover and exhaust.

          This is also his case that he visited the workshop of the authorized dealer on several dates mentioned in para 2 of the complaint and also sent a feedback dated 16.09.1992 to the manufacturer Escorts Limited followed by a complaint to the said company alleging defect in the tractor.  Since the defects in the tractor were not removed, he approached the concerned District Forum seeking directions for replacement of the tractor by a new tractor alongwith compensation. 

2.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioner as well as respondent no. 2 & 3.  They denied the alleged defects in the tractor and claimed that the tractor carried a warranty of one year or 120 hours whichever was earlier and they were required to remove the manufacturing defects if any during the said period either by repairing or replacing the defective components of the tractor.  It was also alleged that the tractor was taken to the workshop on 25.01.1995 when it was opened and an estimate of Rs.25,000/- was prepared for repairing the said tractor.  On 30.01.1995, the complainant alongwith a surveyor appointed by National Insurance Company, visited the workshop and at that time, it transpired that in fact the vehicle had met with an accident and an insurance claim had been lodged.  Later, the insurer rejected the claim on the ground that the tractor had been got opened by the complainant without instructions from its surveyor. 

3.      The District Forum, vide its order dated 11.07.1997, allowed the complaint and directed replacement of the tractor or in alternative, payment of Rs.1,71,980/- alongwith interest.  The compensation quantified at Rs.1,000/- and cost of litigation quantified at Rs.200/- was also awarded. 

4.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  The said appeal also having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition. 

5.      The main issue which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether there was any manufacturing defect in the tractor purchased by the complainant or not.  Admittedly, no Automobile Engineer or any other expert was examined by the complainant to prove the alleged defect in the tractor.  Since the petitioner had denied the alleged defect in the tractor, it was necessary for the complainant to get the tractor examined from an expert and then file the affidavit alongwith opinion of the said expert, to prove the defects alleged by him.  That having not been done, the complainant failed to discharge the onus placed upon him. 

6.      The case of the complainant is as disclosed in para 2 of the complaint is that he had visited the workshop of the complainant as many as 21 times before 25.01.1995.  However, there is no documentary evidence of any such visit.  Had the complainant visited the workshop as is alleged by him, a job card would have been opened on each visit of the workshop and would have been provided to the complainant.  That no such job cards were filed by him before the District Forum is indicative of the fact that no affidavit to the extent alleged by him were made to the workshop.  It would be pertinent to note here that the case of the petitioner is that the tractor was brought to it only on 28.07.1992, 25.10.1992, 21.03.1993 and 03.05.1993 for periodical free service.  Minor defects pointed out during the time of periodical free inspection were attended by adjusting the breaks and clutch and doing the necessary oiling. 

7.      Though the complainant claims to have sent a feedback as well as a complaint to the manufacturer of the tractor, there is no documentary evidence of such a complaint having been made.  Neither any acknowledgment from any manufacturer or the dealer was produced before the District Forum nor any postal receipt evidencing the dispatch of any such complaint was filed.  The obvious inference therefore, is that no complaint as alleged was made to the manufacturer. 

8.      It appears from the facts and circumstances detailed hereinabove that the tractor got damaged during an accident and was taken to the workshop.  Since the claim was later denied by the insurer on account of the complainant having got the tractor opened without instructions from its surveyor, the complainant decided to file a consumer complaint against the manufacturer and dealer, in order to obtain replacement of a tractor which had been damaged in the accident. 

9.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside.  The complaint is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.