STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 08.07.2024 Reserved on : 07.03.2025 Date of Decision : 19.03.2025 Preet Group of Companies, Post Box No. 29, Nabha-Patiala Road, Nabha, District Patiala, Punjab, India through its M.D./Authorized Signatory Email : www.preet.com ….Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 Versus

1. Tarsem Singh son of Tara Singh, resident of VPO Gharyala, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran.

Mobile No. 98773-32195, Aadhar Card No. 6583 4861 9647 .…Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. M/s Friends Auto Mobile through its Office at Near Majha College, T Point, Sarhali Road, Tarn Taran through its Proprietor .…Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1 First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tarn Taran in C.C. No. 33 of 2023.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No 3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh. Harpreet Singh, Advocate for Sh. Navpreet Singh, Advocate For respondent No.2 : None VISHAV KANT GARG, MEMBER :

Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Preet Group of Companies, has filed the present Appeal through its M.D./Authorized Signatory to challenge the impugned order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tarn Taran (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant-Tarsem Singh had been Partly Allowed

2. Present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant alongwith M.A. No.738 of 2024 for condonation of delay of 79 days in filing the same, which was supported by an affidavit of Regional Service Manager. The reasons mentioned in the application are that after receiving the certified copy of the impugned order, they had sent registered notices dated 13.03.2024 and 20.03.2024 to the Respondent No.1/Complainant for producing the tractor at the Authorized Dealer. On inspection, the staff did not find any defect in the Tractor and informed the same to the Respondent No.1 but neither he agree with it nor signed the satisfaction note. Thereafter, the Appellant-Company after consulting the matter with the Management and Legal Team, had decided to file the Appeal. Before preparing the Appeal, the Counsel for the Appellant sought complete record of the District Commission and in this process delay of 79 days had occurred, which was neither intentional nor deliberate but had occurred due to the reasons explained above. Whereas the Counsel for the Respondent No.1 has opposed to condone the delay.

3. From the perusal of the above said facts, it is clear that there was no intentional reason for delay whereas the act of the Appellant shows that they had tried to comply with the directions of the District Commission by calling the Respondent No.1 with Tractor to approach the Authorized Service Centre. Thus, we find justifiable reasons for condoning the delay of

79 days.

4. In view of our above, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay of 79 days in filing the Appeal is condoned.

Main Case

5. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Respondent/Complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘Complainant’) in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that he had purchased Preet Tractor, Model 6549, bearing Registration No.PB46-AH-1839, on 30.04.2022 from the OPs, for agricultural use. He had purchased the same by spending an amount of Rs.9,50,000/-. The Complainant had pleaded that when after 2/3 weeks from the purchase of the same, he used the Tractor in the fields for harvesting the wheat crop, tractor was stopped due to some technical fault. The Complainant had informed