A consumer must report defects in a product to the supplier in a timely manner to seek relief under the Consumer Protection Act.

Dr. David Annoussamy, President — This is an appeal by the complainant. The substance of his averment before the District Forum is as follows :

2. In 1980, he wanted to purchase one tractor and approached the State Bank of India, Mylam branch; that bank stipulated that the loan could be granted only for the ‘International’ tractor manufactured by the opposite party. He accepted the same. The loan was sanctioned. The tractor was purchased. After the purchase of the tractor, he found several defects in the machine, particularly the following ones :

(i) Crank shafts including bearings were weak. They broke frequently and had to be changed twice.

(ii) Inner housing and bearing were also weak and defective. They had to be changed 4 times.

(iii) Full housing and bearings were weak and defective and had to be changed.

(iv) Hydraulic crown wheels were also weak and defective. They and 2 full pinions and 2 big wheels had also to be changed twice.

During the period of 6 years from the time of purchase, the tractor could not be used for nearly 4 years and the party incurred a loss of Rs. 35,000/- on account of non-use. He therefore prayed for the reimbursement of the total amount of Rs. 75,000/- representing the loss incurred by him.

3. The opposite party in his counter stated as follows :

The warranty for the vehicle came to an end within a period of one year from the date of delivery; the seller is not responsible for the brake-down or failure after that period. The complaint has been filed nearly after 6 years. The opposite party has not violated any of the provisions of the Act. Nor did he fail to fulfill his obligation to the consumer. No details were given as to when the brake-down occurred and when the tractor got repaired and by whom the repairs were done. The purchaser failed to take proper care of the vehicle. On the basis of the above statements, the opposite party prayed the District Forum to dismiss the complaint.

4. By order dated 20.6.1990 the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

5. Aggrieved by the abovesaid order of the District Forum, the appellant has come before this Commission by way of this appeal. We shall deal below with the grounds which deserve separate consideration.

Ground No. 3 : According to the appellant, the District Forum did not see that there was no denial by the opposite party. This ground has no merit in the circumstances of the case. As per the averments of the complainant himself, he has changed some items four times. What exactly happened to the machine was something unknown to the opposite party; they could not come out with any denial. Therefore, the absence of specific denial will not in any manner weaken the case of the defendant.

Ground No. 5 : The second ground is that the District Forum erred in holding that the warranty period expired before the claim. This ground is not factually correct. In fact, the District Forum observed that the complainant was an agriculturist having no knowledge of English language; that the warranty card was in English and that therefore not too much importance was to be given to the warranty card. The District Forum was correct in making those observations. Warranty should be in a language which is to be understood by the consumer, otherwise even if the signature is obtained, it cannot be said that he has understood fully all the conditions incorporated in the warranty form.

Ground No. 6 : The 3rd ground urged is that the District Forum was prejudiced by the fact that the complaint was a sequel to the fact of the State Bank of India filing a complaint against the consumer. The judgment of the District Forum does not disclose that it based its decision on the fact of the institution of the case by the bank. While going through the order, we do not find any prejudice in the mind of the Forum in this regard.

Ground No. 7 : This ground is that the District Forum erred in not considering the defects pointed out by the complainant. This is also not factually correct