PER DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER 1. The present Revision Petition has been filed before this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 01.11.2013 in Appeal No. 1056 of 2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, tate Commission. The State Commission dismissed the Appeal and allowed the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, istrict Forum in Complaint No. 173/2011. 2. Brief Facts of the case are that on 01.06.2011, the Complainant/Respondent Sri Rama Lakhan purchased a Tractor Swaraj 735 F. E., for a total cost of Rs.4,70,000/- from Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., the OP-1. It was purchased by making an advance payment of Rs.70,000/- in cash and Rs.4,00,000/- through Cheque/Demand Draft drawn on Punjab & Sindh Bank, Branch Jhandi, District Khiri, the OP-3. The OP 1 & 2 assured the Complainant of one year warranty, for change and repairing of the tractor, in the event of any problem. On very same day, when the Complainant took the tractor to his residence, he noticed Mobil leakage from the silencer. Therefore, on next day (2.6.2011) Complainant returned the tractor to OP-1 and the OP-1 after having a talk with OP-2, promised to provide a new tractor, on the next date. The Complainant also informed to OP-3 bank, regarding the said problem in tractor and OP-3 also wrote a letter to OP-1, for change of tractor. After several oral and written communications, the OP-1 called the Complainant to take the delivery of the tractor, by paying Rs.20,000/- towards repair charges for the tractor. As, the tractor was under warranty period, complainant refused to pay the charges, hence OP did not deliver the tractor. The complainant filed a complaint before District Forum, Lakhimpur, Khiri, alleging negligent attitude of OP-1, due to which he suffered loss in crop, further burden of bank interest on the loan, and mental agony. 3. The District Forum directed the OP to return the cost of tractor, granted interest @ of 18% per annum, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-. 4. Against the order of District Forum, the OP filed a First Appeal 1056/2012 before State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order of State Commission, this revision petition has been filed. 6. We have heard counsel for both the parties. The counsel for OP submitted that the said tractor was sold to the complainant, on 25.03.2011 on credit basis. It was a practice in rural area, that Agriculturists purchase tractors before crop season and pay from their earnings, during season. The seller facilitates to get loan from the banks. Thereafter, the complainant used the tractor and took it to OP for two free-services, on 3.4.2011 and on 19.05.2011. Again, on 01.06.2011, the Complainant complained of only leakage of Mobil oil from silencer. It was a minor repair which was done on very next day i.e. 2.6.2011, by replacing the package made of cardboard with iron inside, it was to seal the silencer. The package costs were charged at Rs.10/- to Rs.15/- approximately. Therefore, the tractor was ready for delivery on 02.06.2011. However, the Complainant has failed to take delivery of the same since 02.06.2011. 7. We have perused the agreement letter, the tractor delivery Challan dated 25.03.2011 and the job cards for 1st and 2nd free services done on 19.5.2011 and 22.05.2011. Also perused the receipt. No.312 dated 1/6/2011 towards the payment of Rs.4,70,000/-. We are of considered view that, an apparent error has been committed by the both fora below, who have not taken any opinion/evidence of any handwriting expert, but concluded that complainant signatures are forged by the OPs. In our observations, the State Commission and District Forum have not held that the tractor suffered from any manufacturing defects. Both the Fora did not take any opinion or did not appoint any approved agency to test the tractor. Therefore, we are of considered view that, the order of fora below to replace or of cost of tractor is not sustainable. So far as replacement of tractor is concerned, we clap no importance to these arguments. We place reliance upon following decisions of this commission and the Honle Supreme Court, namely, Maruti Udyog Ltd Vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr,I(2006)CPJ 3(SC) Maruti Udyog Limited Vs Hasmukh Lakshmichand & Anr, III(2009)CPJ 229 NC, Classic Automobiles Vs Lila Nand Mishra & Anr I(2010)CPJ 235(NC) SLP Civil Appeal No 19967 of 2013 decided on 12/7/2013 Hiralal Vs MGF Toyota Gurgaon Capital Vehicles Sales Ltd, in the Revision Petition No 4654/2012. 8. We are of the opinion that, the OP is liable for deficiency in service, because the OP has not supplied the tractor to the complainant, after repair which was during warranty period, but OP demanded Rs.20,000/-. Therefore, on the basis of foregoing discussion, we set aside the orders passed by both the fora below and partly allow this revision petition, with the following order: The OP-1 is directed to hand over the tractor with proper repairs completely with a warranty for one year from the date of delivery. As, complainant deserves for proper compensation who has suffered crop loss and mental agony, accordingly, the OP-1 is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum, from 01.06.2011 till payment. OP-1 shall comply this order within 90 days, from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise the amount will carry further interest @ 9% p.a., till it realization.