The main legal point established in the judgment is the joint responsibility of the manufacturer and dealer to rectify defects in the product, as well as the interpretation of provisions under the Consumer Protection Act.

ORDER

V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member - Being aggrieved by order dated 15.12.2009, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short as 'state Commission) petitioner has filed these revisions.

2. Notice of these revisions was issued to both the respondents but respondent No. 2 did not appear in spite of service and as such was proceeded ex parte.

3. Brief facts of this case are that respondent No. 1/complainant filed a complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redrssal Forum, Vidhisha, M.P. (for short as District Forum ) on the ground that he had purchased a tractor manufactured by petitioner from respondent No. 2 (OP-1 in the District Forum) under the exchange scheme launched by the petitioner. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 gave his old tractor for Rs. 60,000 and paid Rs. 40,000 towards margin money. It is alleged that the tractor did not start the very next day of delivery and on complaint to respondent No. 2, new battery was alleged to be replaced by the old battery on which the year of manufacturer was not mentioned. It is further alleged that the tractor was emitting lot of fume and was not taking load and consuming lot of diesel. Despite first service, the tractor was consuming lot of diesel. Respondent No. 1 made a complaint and respondent No. 2 replaced the diesel pump, after which the consumption of diesel was reduced. On further complaint, respondent No. 2 replaced the ring piston of the tractor. Further, it is alleged that the tractor was having old tyres in it and the tractor was also repainted in patches from where the original colour of the tractor was coming out. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 filed a complaint against the respondents' deficiency, praying that new tractor be given in place of old tractor and further he be awarded compensation on account of mental harassment suffered by him.

4. Petitioner in its written statement has stated that it has never received any complaint from respondent No. 1 that the tractor was not starting from very next day of delivery. With regard to the complaint of consumption of high diesel, it was found that respondent No. 1 was using diesel mixed with kerosene because of which the diesel pump and ring piston of the tractor was replaced without any charges. Moreover, petitioner never received any complaint from respondent No. 1 that the tractor was old. It is further stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the tractor sold and delivered to respondent No. 1. It is further stated that any defect alleged to be there in the tractor, petitioner removed to the satisfaction of respondent No. 1, as per the job cards singed by him. It is also alleged that there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Further, petitioner has also filed reply for setting aside the report of the local mechanic as the same was not maintainable under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as Act ).

5. Respondent No. 2 in its written statement filed before District Forum, has stated that it has never received any complaint from respondent No. 1 that the tractor was not starting the very next day and it did not even replace any battery. On the complaint with regard to the consumption of diesel, it was found that respondent No. 1 was using diesel mixed with kerosene because of which the diesel pump and ring piston of the tractor was replaced without any charge. Further, answering respondent never received any complaint from respondent No. 1 that the tractor was old.

6. Arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner as well learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 have been heard.

7. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that impugned order as well the order passed by the District Forum, suffers from material irregularity as there is no finding of any inherent manufacturing defect and the Foras below failed to call for any independent expert opinion. In the absence of which it cannot be asserted that there was