O R D E R

          This order shall dispose of First Appeals No.225 – 229/2001 as the point of law involved in all these Appeals is same with little variation of facts.  The facts are being taken from F.A. No.225/2001.

          Girija Nandan Mistri, the appellant herein, had purchased one Pratap 284 tractor manufactured by M/s.Auto Tractors Ltd., a Govt. undertaking of U.P., through its authorized dealer – Bharat Brothers (Respondent No.2), after taking loan from the State Bank of India.  According to the appellant, after purchasing the tractor, the tractor did not give proper service and was found to be weak and unfit for cultivation, as a result of which, the cultivation of the complainant suffered.  The complaint was filed.

          Initially the State Commission dismissed the complaint holding that the appellants had failed to establish that there was any material defect in the tractors supplied to them by the respondents.  Aggrieved by this, the appellants filed First Appeals No.34-45 and 235 of 1991 before this Commission.  Those Appeals came up for hearing before the Bench of this Commission on 21.7.1992 and were disposed of by passing the following order :

“The State Commission has declined to grant any relief to the Complainants on the ground that they have failed to establish that there was any material defect in the Tractors supplied to them by the first Respondent.  It is true that the evidence adduced in respect of the matter on the side of the complainants was far from satisfactory and they had not specifically taken resort to the procedure contained in Section 13 (1) (c) of the Act for getting the tractors inspected by an expert, but, having regard to the fact that the Complainants are poor illiterate agriculturists and they did not have any assistance of counsel before the State Commission, we are inclined to take a lenient view of the matter and deem it fit to grant an opportunity to the Complainants to make good the lacuna in the evidence.  If possible, by taking resort to the procedure under Section 13 (1) (c) for getting the tractors examined by an expert.  We accordingly allow these appeals and remand the cases to the State Commission with the direction that the complainants shall be afforded a fresh opportunity to have the tractors in question examined by an expert for the purpose of determining whether they suffer from any manufacturing defect.  The cost of getting the tractors inspected by an expert to be appointed by the State Commission would be borne, in the first instance, by the complainants.  The State Commission will decide the matter afresh in the context of such further evidence as may be adduced before it.  There shall be no direction regarding costs.  The counsel for the appellant (complainant) makes it clear before us that the Complainants are not claiming any relief as against the second respondent.” 

          As per direction in the above said order, the appellants being poor, illiterate agriculturists, were permitted to lead expert evidence to prove that there was any manufacturing defect.  After the remand, the State Commission obtained a report from the Assistant Mechanical Engineer, Patna of a Govt. Department.  The State Commission, after going through the report of the independent expert, came to the conclusion that there was no manufacturing defect in the tractors and accordingly directed the respondents to rectify the defects in the tractors in question on payment of the price of the spare parts without charging anything for the labour/service for doing so.  Further direction given was to do so within a period of 2 months of the communication of the order.  The direction issued by the State Commission in its order in para-15 reads as under :

“Opposite party No.1 at Page 7 of the reply to the written statement of O.P. No.2 has undertaken to rectify the defects in the tractors in question if pointed out by the complainants on payment of charges as the warranty period has expired.  That being so, we direct the O.P. No.1, in the interest of good customer relationship, to examine the trailors of the complainants and remove all the defects found therein on payment of the price of the spare parts only without charging anything for the services and this should be done within two months of the communication of this order.  Opposite Party No.1 shall send an Engineer/Mechanic for the purpose to their authorized dealer at Purnea after giving registered notice to the complainants for producing their tractors on different dates and repair their tractors within the time limit given above.  Both the complaint petitions are disposed of accordingly.”

          Aggrieved by this, present appeals have been filed by some of the complainants.

          We have gone through the order passed by the State Commission as well as the report of the expert.  The expert, in his report, does not say that there is any manufacturing defect in the tractors.  The only defect pointed out by the expert was regarding various parts of the tractors, which required repair/replacement.  The State Commission was absolutely right in giving the direction to the respondents to repair the tractors by charging for the price of the spare parts only without any labour/service charges.  Onus to prove that there was a manufacturing defect in the tractors was on the appellants, which they have failed to discharge.  Initially the appellants had not produced any expert evidence.  Keeping in mind that the appellants were poor, illiterate agriculturists, this Commission remanded the case to the State Commission to enable the appellants to produce the expert evidence.  The independent expert does not support the version of the appellants.  There is no other evidence to show that there was a manufacturing defect in the tractors, justifying/calling for the replacement of the tractors.

          For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in these appeals and dismiss the same leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

………………………………………….

(ASHOK  BHAN J.)

PRESIDENT

…………………………………………

(B.K. TAIMNI)

MEMBER

/sra/  18(A-E) / Court-1