JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL)

          The complainant/petitioner purchased a tractor-cum-harvester from respondent No.1 Kishan Tractor for a total consideration of Rs.12,90,600/-, which was finances by respondent No.4 Allahabad Bank. The delivery of the tractor-cum-harvester was taken by the complainant/petitioner on 17.11.2009. The case of the complainant is that there were defects in the tractor-cum-harvester sold to him and the said defects were not removed despite his having complained to the seller. The complainant, therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the seller M/s Kishan Tractor. It was interalia stated in the reply filed by him that there was no defect in the tractor when it was delivered. On a complaint made by the petitioner, a minor defect was found which was removed by them. It was stated in the reply that thereafter no defect in the tractor was reported by the complainant.

3.      The District Forum vide its order dated 30.10.2013 directed the respondent No.1 – Kishan Tractor and respondent No.3 – New Holland Tractors (a unit of Fiat India Pvt. Ltd.), to arrange to repair the tractor thoroughly and give a trial run. Since the complainant had paid only 75% of the sale consideration, he was directed to arrange balance payment of amount.

4.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, respondent No.1 Kishan Tractor approached the State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 30.3.2016,  the State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the complainant/petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

5.      A perusal of the job-cards available on page nos. 88 and 89 of the paper-book would show that there was some hydraulic problem in the tractor when examined by the mechanic of New Holland Tractor and the said problem was solved by changing the oil filter. There is absolutely no evidence of the complainant having thereafter either taken the tractor to the premises of respondent No.1 or having even made a complaint either to respondent No.1 or to respondent No.3 alleging therein that the tractor continued to suffer from one defect or the other. No letter was written to either of the aforesaid respondents alleging therein that the complainant had complained about some defect in the tractor and the said complaint was not addressed. Thus there was no evidence before the District Forum to prove that after 3.12.2009 when the tractor was attended for resolving a rather minor problem, there was some other problem with the tractor.

6.      Admittedly, no technical evidence was produced by the complainant to prove that the tractor supplied to him suffered from some defect either at any point of time between 3.12.2009 and filing of the complaint or at any time before the District Forum came to pass the order which was later set aside by the State Commission. In the absence of technical evidence such as the opinion of an automobile engineer or even a mechanic, the District Forum was not justified in directing repair of the tractor after about four years of the purchase. The onus was upon the petitioner/complainant to prove that the tractor suffered from some defect. No such evidence having been produced, the view taken by the State Commission cannot be faulted with.

7.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in this revision petition. The revision petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.