The main legal point established is that the dealer's conduct amounted to unfair trade practices and fraud, and the liability of the manufacturer and dealer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

ORDER

Mr. A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.—Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.10.2006, passed by the learned DCDRF, Bahraich U.P. in complaint case No. 106 of 2004, the appellant/complainant Shri Ram Nath Mishra has preferred the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in the eye of law. It was delivered without proper appreciation of law and/or application of mind on the basis of surmises and conjectures and therefore, it has been prayed that the same be set aside and he be granted compensation as prayed in the complaint otherwise, he will suffer irreparable financial loss.

2. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the appellant/complainant, after obtaining a loan from Central Bank, Payagpur, Bahraich purchased one H.M.T. Tractor Zeeter 5911 bearing Tractor No. 47838, Engine No. 34876, Chassis and Gear Box No. 37031 from the authorised dealer of H.M.T. M/s. Bharat Krishi Corporation, Bahraich for a sum of Rs. 3,85,000.00 on 20.6.2003. It has been alleged at para 3 of the complaint that the dealer, in spite of receiving the entire amount of transaction did not get the Tractor m question registered from the office of the R.T.O. as promised and charged. Consequently, the Tractor still remains unregistered and cannot legally be used for any purpose. It has further been alleged that he purchased the tractor in the year 2003. However, he was provided with an old accidented 1999 model tractor. The Tractor had manufacturing and various other defects but the manufacturer or the dealer did not replace the tracor in spite of report of the engineer of the Company that the vehicle had inherent manufacturing defects. At para 10 of the complaint, it has been alleged that the tractor in question was an accidented one and had cracks in the Engine Chamber. The body was welded near clutch plate assembly. This fact has not been denied in the W.S. and finds mention in the impugned judgment. Aggrieved by this deficiency in service and unfair trade practise, complaint case No. 106 of 2004 was preferred before the learned DCDRF, Bahraich for replacement of the tractor in question with a new one of the same make and up-to-date model. He also prayed that a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 be awarded to him as compensation towards mental and physical agonies and Rs. 10,000.00 towards financial loss in addition to cost of litigation.

3. From perusal of the W.S. filed by the Manufacturer and the Dealer jointly dated 18.1.2006, it is clear that the transaction was admitted by them. They also admitted that the tractor in question was brought to the Workshop for repair a number of times within a short period of the transaction but it took the defence that there was no manufacturing defect in it. The mechanics of the dealer visited the house of the appellant/complainant on 21.4.2004 and found that the tractor was being used at that time for agricultural purposes. However, they respondents did not controvert the allegation that the vehicle was not of 2003 model. They also did not controvert the factum that it was an accidented one and the engineers of the Company had made an observation that it had manufacturing defects. They did not also controvert the factum also that the dealer had received money for registration but did not get the tractor registered with the R.T.O. rendering it unusable on road. Admittedly, original papers were retained by the dealer for registration purposes.

4. The learned Forum below, after hearing the parties, directed the appellant/complainant to deliver the tractor in question at the showroom of the dealer M/s. Bharat Krishi Corporation for removal of the defective parts. No other relief was granted and no reason was assigned for the denial. Aggrieved by this judgment and order, the appellant/complainant preferred the instant appeal for redressal of his grievances and grant of relief as prayed by him in the compla