- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the orders dated 11.02.2008 and 03.04.2008 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 113 of 2007 and on application dated 07.03.2008 moved by the opposite party No. 2 respectively. The District Forum has allowed the complaint with costs of Rs. 1,000/ - and further directed the opposite parties to deliver the Swaraj Tractor No. UA -08 -H -2204 Model No. 744 F.E. to the complainants in running condition after repairing the hosing part of the vehicle and removing other defects within a week from the date of order dated 03.04.2008.
(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainants Sh. Irfan and Sh. Kurban had purchased a Swaraj Tractor of Model No. 744 F.E. on 13.09.2006 for sum of Rs. 4,01,000/ - from the opposite parties. No registration certificate and insurance certificate was given for the said tractor. When the complainants used the tractor for agricultural work, it was found defective. On making a complaint, M/s Sunderam Automobiles, Roorkee opposite party No. 2 (appellant before us), who had delivered the said tractor to the complainants, replaced the tractor with a new Swaraj Tractor of Model No. 744 F.E. This tractor was registered as UA -08 -H -2204. After some time, the complainants found that this tractor was also defective. On complaint, the opposite party No. 2 offered a Swaraj Tractor of Model 855. According to the complainants, this tractor was given as a stand -by for the defective tractor Model No. 744 F.E. and also for testing. The complainants have also alleged that they had given a blank cheque to the opposite party No. 2, who had filled in the figure of Rs. 1,40,000/ - in the cheque and had submitted the cheque to the bank. As a result, the said cheque got dishonoured, for which the opposite party No. 2 had initiated proceedings against the complainants under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainants have also returned the Tractor 855 to the opposite party No. 2, asking it to repair the Tractor 744 F.E. having registration No. UA -08 -H -2204. Since the opposite party No. 2 did not take any action, the complainants filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar, which was allowed by the District Forum in the above terms. Aggrieved, the opposite party No. 2 has filed this appeal.
(3.) NONE appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 complainants and perused the material placed on record. The appeal has been filed with a delay of 84 days, if counted from the order dated 11.02.2008 and with a delay of 32 days, if counted from the subsequent order dated 03.04.2008. In respect of the delay of 32 days, the appellant has explained it and has also submitted an affidavit dated 07.06.2008 of Sh. Shyam Lal, a clerk of the appellant's counsel. Though the complainants have opposed it, but we find that the circumstances narrated in the affidavit might had prevented the appellant from filing the appeal in time. In respect of the delay of 84 days, if counted from the order dated 11.02.2008, we are of the view that the order passed by the District Forum is quite vague due to the words "tractor -in -question". It is the appellant, who had moved an application dated 07.03.2008, on which the District Forum clarified its order dated 11.02.2008 and directed the opposite parties to get the Tractor 744 F.E. repaired and this clarified order led the appellant to file this appeal. For these reasons, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for decision on merit.;