Ms. Rekha Gupta, Member —Revision Petition no. 2814 of 2011 has been filed against the order dated 26.02.2011 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (‘the State Commission’) in appeal no. 771 of 2006.

2. Complaint of the respondent/ complainant in brief is as follows:

Respondent no. 1 is a progressive farmer residing at Atahrdi Tal Kalamb District Osmanabad. Petitioner/ OP no. 2 manufactures and sells Angad tractors and is a sole distributor for Maharashtra and respondent no. 2/ OP 1 is the authorised dealer for selling this tractor. He paid Rs.1,09,500/- as a tractor cost and Rs.24,100/- as a cost of plough thus the total amount was Rs.1,33,600/- and he received a discount of Rs.2,600/-. Thus respondent no. 2 handed over this tractor by taking Rs.1,31,000/-. Respondent no. 2 had orally committed to one year free service and given free service card along with service manual. Respondent no. 1 observed so many defects after working in actual field and hence he took the tractor to the showroom of respondent no. 2 and on 16.02.2005. Respondent no. 1 requested respondent no. 2 to resolve all the defects in this tractor and to repair it. The residence of respondent no. 1 is at Athardi and distance from residence to showroom is 30 km thus the total to and fro is 60 km and respondent no. 1 has to travel 60 km every time for getting his tractor repaired and this leads to unnecessary expenses. After the purchase of tractor from respondent no. 2, from 23.02.2005 to 20.06.2005 for a total of 38 days, the tractor was lying idle at the show room of respondent no. 2

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, who was opposite party no. 2 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Osmanabad (‘the District Forum’) confirmed that they had filed no reply before the District Forum and had chosen to go with the reply of OP 1. However, a reading of the District Forum order does not confirm this fact. The District Forum’s order dated 04.04.2006 only refers to the reply of respondent no. 1. The District Forum dismissed the complaint.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the respondent no. 1/ complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission. After perusing the records and hearing the counsels for the parties the State Commission considered the following points:

(i) “Vehicle admittedly was taken to the respondent for repeated repairs immediately after purchase.

(ii) Instead of free servicing complainant was required to get the repaired vehicle for many defects.

(iii) It is admission of respondent that they tried to repair tractor by going to village of complainant. This itself shows that tractor was not of quality as advertised.

(iv) Respondent did not produce any evidence of expert to show that vehicle is at par. Neither made application before Forum to get inspected the tractor from the expert.

(v) Immediately after purchase of vehicle, complainant was compelled to take tractor to respondent many times for repairs. This fact shifts the burden on respondent to prove that though repairs were carried out they were not manufacturing defects. (vi) Appellant many times approached for repairs then issued legal notice which was also not replied by respondent. Appellant was constrained to leave the tractor with respondent as it was not in condition to use the same. Therefore, we are of the view that brand new tractor immediately after purchase was found to have manufacturing defects. This is unfair trade practice to supply the vehicle with defects. District Forum without appreciating the facts and circumstances, proceeded on the ground that tractor was used by unskilled person. IN the absence of any proof about it Forum decided complaint on assumptions and presumptions. We are therefore, quashing the said order. We are directing respondent to refund the price of tractor with 9% interest from the date of purchase”.

5. The State Commission then passed the following order:

“Hence, the ap