AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
REQUEST for adjournment on behalf of the respondent is declined. In this case while issuing notice we passed the following order : "It is the complainant who is petitioner before us. He purchased a tractor and his complaint is that it was defective from the day one. District Forum on the complaint filed, directed replacement of the tractor itself. However, an appeal was filed by the opposite party, Escorts Ltd., when the State Commission directed that the engine may be replaced and not the entire tractor. To this extent we are not interfering with the order. It is submitted that no compensation was awarded for the trouble undergone by the complainant. Limited to the award of comensation, we admit this petition. Issue notice to the respondents returnable on March 21, 2003."
AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the respondent, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each by the appellant and manufacturer should be paid to the complainant by way of compensation as the tractor was in-operative for a number of years. Revision Petition is disposed of. Revision Petition disposed of.