SYNOPSIS

The present Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Himachal Pradesh State
Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Shimla dated 04.08.2016 in first appeal No. 199/2016
resulting in dismissal of the appeal preferred by the complainant against the order of th editrict
forum.
FACTS
Facts leading to this revision petition are:-

 The complainant purchased a tractor manufactured by respondent No. 2 from the

respondent No.1
 The complainant found that the vehicle in question was a second hand tractor
which was earlier sold by respondent No. 1 to Jagjeevan and had a manufacturing
defect as it started giving distress within few days from the purchase which could
not be rectified. Thus the complainant filed a complaint in the district forum.
 The district forum on consideration of the pleadings and evidence did not find any
merit in the complaint and dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved by the order
of the district forum, the petitioner approached the state commission in appeal.
The state commission also on re-appreciation of the evidences concurred with the
findings of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.
 Being aggrieved by the order passed by the state commission the complainant has
filed the present revision petition.

ISSUES RAISED
The issues that have been raised are as follows:-

 Does the selling of the second hand tractor to the complainant not amount to fraud by the
opposite party No. 1
 Does the complainant have no right to claim a compensation in case of any
manufacturing defect found in his vehicle?
ORDER
The national commission after examining the evidences held that the complainant had purchased
the tractor from the opposite party No. 1 on 16.10.2014. further on reading the service station
invoice relied upon by the complainant , that the invoice is dated 118.011.2015 in which the
consumer’s name is mentioned as Jagjeevan, thus if the complainant had purchased the tractor in
October 2014 there is no possibility of the tractor being sold to Jagjeevan by the opposite party
No. 1. Further the name of Jagjeevan is shown as a consumer and not a registered owner.
Moreover it was concluded that the number of the tractor regarding which the invoice has been
issued is GWRA-00043 and not GWRA-00041, which is the number of the vehicle in question.
Furthermore the second issue raised regarding the manufacturing defect was also rejected as the
complainant failed to provide any cogent evidence to support the allegation of the manufacturing
defect. Thus , based on the above discussion , the national commission dismissed the revision
petition.