IMPORTANT POINT
Scope in a Revision Petition is limited.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents, as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 30.11.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 752 of 2016 in which order dated 13.06.2016 of Sonepat District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 301 of 2015 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 30.11.2017 of the State Commission

2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP No.2) was Appellant and the Respondent No.1 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘Complainant’) and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were also respondent No.2 to 4 in the said FA No. 752 of 2016 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was OP No.2, Respondents No.1 was Complainant and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were OP Nos.1, 3 and 4 before the District Forum in the CC No. 301 of 2015. Notice was issued to the Respondents on 27.02.2018. Petitioner filed Written Arguments / Synopsis on 05.01.2023 and Respondent No.1 filed Written Arguments / Synopsis on 21.12.2022.

3. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that Complainant purchased a tractor vehicle Mahindra Arjun 605 D1 on 04.11.2014 from Respondent No.2 (Vijay Agro Engineering Works), an authorized dealer of the Petitioner for a consideration of Rs.7,30,000/-. The tractor vehicle was purchased for earning his livelihood by using for agricultural purposes. Complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- in cash and remaining amount, which was to be paid in six monthly installments of Rs.1,00,000/- each, was financed from Respondent No.3 herein (Magma Fincorp Ltd.). At the time of purchase, the complainant was provided manufacturer warranty for a period of 12 months or 1000 operational hours of the tractor from the date of purchase. After seven days from the date of purchase, the tractor was taken to the workshop of respondent no.2 on 11.11.2014 for routine first service and defects in the battery and lift were pointed out by the complainant. The defect in the lift was removed but the complainant was asked to continue using the tractor with defects in the battery. When the complainant took the tractor to the workshop of respondent no.2 on 01.12.2014 for service, it was brought to their notice that tractor vehicle was not taking the required load and also pointed out other defects in the vehicle. The defects were not rectified and complainant was given assurance that defects would be removed at the time of next service.

4. Complainant further stated that when the tractor vehicle was again taken to the workshop on 01.06.2015, there was defect in the gear box of the vehicle and even after service defects could not be removed, though Self of the tractor was repaired but there was starting problem. The vehicle was taken to the workshop of respondent no.2 several times for various defects like defects in the driver seat, lift.etc. Even the pistons, ring, sleeve and seals were replaced but the defects were not completely removed. The tractor was not taking the load and was brought to the workshop of respondent no.1 but problem still persisted. Engineer of Respondent no.2, namely, Shamsher Singh, was called who checked the tractor vehicle and visited the fields of the complainant for observing the working of tractor which was videographed. The Engineer told that tractor was taking extra diesel and was not taking load and was giving heat abnormally. The tractor was got insured by the complainant with respondent no.4 herein (Magma HDI Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.) initially for a period of one year. According to the compla