The manufacturer and dealer of a defective tractor are liable to refund the price of the tractor or replace it with a new one, and they are also liable to pay compensation for loss of crops and interest on the loan amount.

Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President—The complainant has filed this complaint for recovery of Rs. 3,93,400/- alongwith 18% per annum interest as price of the tractor and for replacement of existing tractor with a new one and damages.

2. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant is a farmer and in order to purchase a tractor he approached the opposite parties 2 and 3, M/s. B.R. Auto Sales Private Limited and Uttar Pradesh Rajya Sahakari Krishi Evam Gram Vikas Bank Limited who were willing to provide loan for purchase of a tractor. A sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was sanctioned as loan for purchase of a tractor. The complainant approached opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, M/s. Escort Tractors Limited and M/s. B.R. Auto Sales Private Limited, a dealer of Escorts Limited, respectively. The complainant purchased a tractor for Rs. 2,17,000/- on 20.11.1991, the details of which are given in para 2 of the complaint. This tractor went out of order on 3.12.1991 and the complainant approached M/s. Vikram Tractors, Naka Paisar, Faizabad Road, District Barabanki who is the authorised sales and service agent of Escorts. He charged a sum of Rs. 693/- and repaired the defect. Copy of bill issued by him as Annexure 1 to the complaint. This tractor again developed some defects on 7.4.1992 and the complainants approached the same dealer who after charging Rs. 713/- repaired the same. A copy of this bill issued by him is Annexure 2 to the complaint. Thereafter again the tractor developed defects on 13.7.1992 and the tractor was handed over to the same dealer in his workshop on that date. Since that date the tractor is lying in his workshop. The complainant sent a registered letter on 20.7.1992 complaining about the defects and making a request that another tractor be given to him as the tractor is developing defects since the very beginning. No action has been taken on this application. Thereafter a legal notice was given on 30.7.1992 but no effect. Copies of these letters are Annexures 4 and 5.

3. It is further alleged that the complainant could not harvest his Rabi and Kharif crops resulting into loss of Rs. 1,75,000/-. The complainant has also spent a sum of Rs. 1,406/- in repairing the tractor. He has claimed these amounts alongwith interest and damages.

4. Notices were sent to all the opposite parties in April, 1993 by registered post which were not received back unserved. Similarly notices were sent again in September, 1994 to all the opposite parties by registered post which were also not received back unserved. In response to the above notice, opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 filed written statements mentioning therein that the loan was taken from them and the tractor was purchased by the complainant whose delivery was given to him. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 7,500/- as first instalment on 1.10.1992 and Rs. 15,000/- on another date. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on 25.5.1993. Thereafter no amount has been deposited by the complainant.

5. Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 have not filed any written statement inspite of service of notice which is deemed to be sufficient. Hence suit proceeded ex parte against them.

6. The complainant filed evidence on affidavit in support of his contention.

7. On the date of hearing none of the parties were present. Hence the case was reserved for judgment.

8. We have perused the entire evidence on record and find that the complainant purchased a tractor for Rs. 2,17,000/- on 20.11.1991. Soon after the purchase, the tractor developed defects on two times within short intervals. The complainant had to pay a sum of Rs. 1,406/- on repair of the tractor. Copies of both the bills have been filed which are also proved. Thus we find that the tractor did not give satisfactory service at all during the short time of its purchase. Therefore, the tractor was handed over to the service station of the authorised dealer of the manufacturer, opposite party No. 1, Escort Tractors Ltd. Since then the tractor