The court upheld the State Commission's order under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, regarding the replacement of the pump and payment of compensation.

Case of the complainant:

Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Member—The complainant, Saghir Ahmed Khan of Sultanpur purchased a Mahendra Tractor 269 DD 1999 Model for agricultural purpose from M/s. Mehar Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Sultanpur on 30.6.1999 after obtaining a loan from the Kshetriya Gramin Bank. M/s. Mehar Automobiles with mala fide intention handed over the tractor 265 D I Model without any documentation to the complainant. The driver of the complainant while taking the tractor to his house found some fault in running of the tractor and in taking load by the engine. When the complainant brought this to the notice of the O.P. No. 2, Mehar Automobiles the O.P. No. 2 got the engine and the pump of the tractor inspected by their technical staff and they assured that the fault will be cured once the engine is set, but the fault was not cured and he made further complaint. The guarantee period of the engine is 2000 hours and the tractor was running in defective condition for 1400 hours. Hence, he filed the complaint before the District Forum and prayed for direction to O.P. No. 2 to replace the tractor in question with a new tractor of the same model in good working condition and pay damage of Rs. 95,000 caused due to loss of income with interest at 18% per annum and a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation. The O.P. No. 2 filed a reply denying the averments made in the complaint stating that repair work was carried out by their engineers. He also stated that the pump and some parts of the tractor were manufactured by Mico Company which had a warranty of 1000 hours or for a period of one year and they have also stated that when the company gave free service to the complainant, he was advised not to disturb the FIP and neither increase or decrease the supply of oil in FIP. He was also further directed to get the tractor repaired at the authorised workshop only. Every time the complainant brought the tractor it was repaired and the complainant affixed his signature(s) on the job card expressing his satisfaction.

2. The District Forum came to the conclusion that the tractor purchased by the complainant from O.P. No. 2 was defective from the beginning and complaint in this regard had been made by complainant with O.P. No. 2 within the period of warranty and the same had not been cured and tractor was not handed over in proper condition nor a new tractor was given. Complainant was given the defective tractor two months prior to the date of real sale without any security by the O.P. No. 2. This action of the O.P. No. 2 comes within the purview of definition of illegal trade practice, which clearly proves the deficiency in service of O.P. No. 2.

3. Accordingly the District Forum ordered as follows:

Complaint is allowed against the O.P. No. 2. O.P. No. 2 is hereby directed to take back the tractor in dispute from the complainant within two months and give a new tractor of same model and condition to the complainant. If it is not possible then pay the principal amount of the disputed tractor along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of sale i.e., 30.6.1999 till the date of actual payment. Apart from this also pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards compensation and Rs. 200 towards cost of complaint is rejected against the O.P. Nos. 1 and 3.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum Mehar Automobiles filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The State Commission after hearing the parties and going through the documents held that there was certainly a defect in the pump which required to be repaired time and again. Therefore, statement of the complainant is proved that finally on 11.4.2000, when asked to repair the pump, the pump was not repaired and the tractor is standing in non-running condition. To this extent the order of the District Forum is proper and, therefore, it would have been proper to direct only change/replacement of the pump. However, the State Commission held that rest of the order