Heard the learned counsel for  the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                  The case of    the complainant, in nutshell is that  the complainant has purchased  a Sonalika Graden Tractor o  model GT20(S.C)540 on 31.05.2015 from OP No.1 having warranty for 18 months  or 1500 hours of operation. It is alleged inter-alia that  the complainant being poor farmer incurred loan from the  OP No.3 to purchase such tractor. It is alleged that after purchase of tractor  the tractor develops some defect. So, the complainant approached OP No.1 by spending Rs.1000/-  for carrying such tractor to  the workshop of OP No.1. After repair also the tractor develops another defect. Thereafter the complainant contacted OP No.1 but there was no response from the OP No.1 & 3. Therefore, the complaint was filed.

4.           The OP No.1 was set ex-parte.

5.          OP No.2 & 3 filed the written version separately. OP No.2 took the plea that  in the written version that the self service was provided by the dealer and the authorized service centre and the allegation of the complainant is false and fabricated  after repair of the tractor the complainant did not take the tractor. The complainant  filed the complaint   in order to harass the OP No.2.

6.               OP No.3 submitted that there have financed the complainant to purchase such tractor and the dispute with regard to this tractor, OP has nothing to say.

7.        After hearing  both the parties, learned
District Forum   has passed the following order:-

                      Xxxx         xxxxx           xxxxxxx

                      “The OP No.1 and 2 are directed to supply a new tractor  to the petitioner within a period of two months hence  from this order and pay Rs.10,000/- jointly to the consumer/petitioner towards litigation cost and mental agony.”

8.               Learned  counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by directing  to replace  the new tractor whereas there is no deficiency to show that the tractor is defective.  Moreover, he submitted that there is no frequent defect disputed by the complainant to arrive  at a conclusion that the tractor is defective one. So, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

9.               Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.

10.                    No doubt the tractor in question was purchased by the complainant. It not in dispute that  the complainant took the tractor  to the workshop of OP No.1 on 28.07.2015 for repairing. We have gone through the documents. It appears that the complainant has only one job card dtd.28.07.2015. But no other document is  filed  to show that the tractor develops defect from time to time. In such circumstances, we are pertinent to observe that for once or twice for repairing will not give rise to any observation so as to replace the tractor with new one. Since, the complainant has failed to prove the job card, we find no other evidence to come to a conclusion that there is  defect in the tractor which was sold so as to replace in new one. So, the finding of the learned District Forum is set-aside and it is set-aside.

                    Appeal stands allowed. No cost.

                Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.   

                  DFR be sent back forthwith.

                   Statutory amount be refunded.