IMPORTANT POINT
(1) Replacement – absence of any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, here the tractor, no replacement thereof could be claimed.

ORDER

R.K. Agrawal, President.—The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Impugned Order dated 14.03.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as State Commission) in Appeal Nos. A/10/616 and A/10/806, whereby the State Commission had dismissed the Appeal No. A/10/616 filed by Mr. Baliram Laxman Patil (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Complainant’) and allowed the Appeal No. A/10/806 filed by the Commonwealth Sales Corporation Panvel and Mr. Rajendra Mhatre (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 respectively) by setting aside the Order dated 26.05.2010 passed in Complaint No. 07/2010 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (for short “the District Forum”) vide which the District Forum had partly allowed the Complaint and directed the Opposite Party No. 1 to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant alongwith interest @8% p.a. from the date of Order towards Compensation. The Opposite Party No.1 was also directed to pay Rs.12,000/- towards physical and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards expenditure.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner/Complainant had purchased a Tractor Model No. 595 DT Turbo Super 52 HP, manufactured by Respondent/Opposite Party No. 2, Mahindra & Mahindra Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Manufacturer’) from Rajendra Mhatre, Respondent/Opposite Party No. 3, Employee of Respondent/Opposite Party No. 1, Commonwealth Sales Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as OP Dealer) who is Dealer of the Manufacturer. It was averred that within 7 – 8 days, the said Tractor became faulty. Before he could lodge the complaint about fault in the tractor, some officials/engineers of the OP No. 2 Manufacturer, approached the Complainant and inspected the Tractor. After inspection, they told him that the Tractor is faulty and they will repair it. Thereafter, nothing was done. When the Complainant tried to start the Tractor, it became excessive hot. Thereafter, the Complainant informed the incident to the Respondent/OP No.3, who suggested to inform the Respondent No. 1. Accordingly, the Complainant informed the Respondent No. 1 but they did not pay any attention. Ultimately, the Complainant lodged its complaint with Respondent/OP-2 Manufacturer, who towed the Tractor to OP No. 1 at Panvel and the towing charges of Rs.1000/- was borne by the Complainant. It was averred that after repeated follow-up the OP No. 1 replaced the engine of the Tractor with new one but the new engine was not having the logo of the Company. It was further averred in the Complaint that despite replacing the engine, the Tractor was not working properly. Despite making several requests to the Opposite Parties, the Tractor was in non-working condition. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has claimed the following amount as relief in the Complaint:-

3. Upon notice, Respondents contested the Complaint and file their written statement. It was stated that Respondent No.2 is the manufacturer of the Tractor and Respondents No.1 and 3 are only the dealers. It was further stated that on 23.11.2009, on the insistence of the Complainant, the engine was replaced with a new sealed engine in his presence and the new engine number was informed to the RTO, Pen. Other allegations in the Complaint were denied.

4. After giving due consideration to the facts and material on record, the District F