ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Revisionist petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum who had sold a power tiller to the respondent through his dealer in October, 1989. The respondent who was the complainant before District Forum who, on regularly going to the workshop for repairs of the power tiller within the warranty period and not being satisfied with the service rendered to him, filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service who after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint. An appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission was also dismissed as barred by limitation, hence this revision petition.
2. It is important to recall that this was the second round of litigation. Upon filing a complaint by the complainant in May, 1992, the District Forum passed the order in October, 1992 ex parte the petitioner remaining absent in spite of notice and the dealer, i.e., respondent No. 4 before the District Forum having closed his business. On an appeal filed by the petitioner, the State Commission remanded the case to give an opportunity to the petitioner who after hearing the parties, again, found the petitioner deficient and directed the petitioner to refund a sum of Rs. 98,800 towards purchase of tractor/power tiller and cost of Rs. 1,000.
3. The main ground of revision is that the State Commission erred in not condoning the delay of one day only in filing the appeal. Before the State Commission on several occasions, the petitioner remained unrepresented on account of the failure on the part of his lawyer. On merits, his case is that there has been no deficiency on his part. As and when his tractor came before the dealer with any defect, it was repaired and a certificate of satisfaction obtained from the complainant is vague. Provision of Section 13 was not followed. No evidence was led by the complainant in support of his case in the absence of which they remain unsubstantiated allegations. There were no manufacturing defects, hence, the District Forum erred in ordering refund of the price of the tractor.
4. The respondent/complainant in spite of notice and having been given Rs. 2,000 by the petitioner on the direction of the Commission to enable the complainant to travel and appear before us remained absent, hence, proceeded ex parte.
5. There is no dispute that the tractor/power tiller was purchased by the complainant, manufactured by the petitioner and sold through his dealer on 25.10.1989. Within three days, i.e., on 29.10.1989, problems developed and the complainant had to go to the workshop of the petitioner’s dealer. Complaint was attended to and the tractor returned after rectifying the same. The tractor was again back in the workshop on 23.11.1989. It was repaired/attended to and returned to on 16.12.1989 and again repaired on 4.5.1990. The material filed by the petitioner includes a satisfactory certificate in English alleged to be a translation of Hindi original and signed by the complainant. We are amazed to see in Annexure-E filed by the petitioner a date of 24.10.1989 as the date on which the mechanic of the opposite parties attended. This was before even the date of sale, i.e., on 25.10.1989. Since the Hindi version is not on record, we are unable to appreciate the anomaly. Had the material in Hindi, i.e., the original, been on record, we would have satisfied ourselves about the veracity of all such documents on record. We are unable to accept these documents in the absence of originals.
6. A poor farmer having purchased tractor in 1989 has been constantly engaged by the resourceful petitioner in continuous rounds of litigation for the last thirteen years. It is not disputed that in the warranty period itself, the tractor was often in the petitioner’s workshop rather than with the complainant, helping him in the field. Second time power tiller/tractor went to the workshop on 23.1.1989, i.e., within less than one month of the purchase and it was returned after repairing/attending on it only on 16.12.1989. One ought to appreciate that this is the peak time for sowing the field and the equipment is very much required at the time. A point is made that Section 13 of C.P.A. was not followed. Reading of Section 13 (3) makes it clear only ‘where the complainant alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without analysis or test of the goods…..’ But, in this case, it was the admitted position that there were series of defects attended to by the petitioner’s dealer’s workshop. The factum of defects was established. There was no dispute on their point-so where was the case of its being referred to any one? It is settled law that admitted facts need not be proved. The factum of the tractor repeatedly going to the workshop has not been denied. So, there was nothing for the complainant to prove about the defects in the tractor which was ‘engine getting hot’, ‘consuming more diesel’, etc. As per record, the tractor was attended to and ‘Engine Side Seal and Gasket changed’, ‘Electrical parts changed’. Torque of the Cylinder head changed” and other defects were noticed and attended to. When a poor farmer pays a price of equipment, he does not buy a headache. Within three days and then again within one month of its purchase, the tractor is back in the workshop with the defects related to engine. It is also obvious that a lot of time was taken to repair the defects thus depriving the use of the tractor at a critical time to the complainant. If the piece was bad, it would have been becoming of the petitioner to change the piece. We do not know the status of the tractor as on today nor could the learned counsel enlighten us on this point. A poor farmer living with a nonfunctional tractor for thirteen years should have really awakened the petitioner’s sense of responsibility and as a respectable member of the Business Society should have voluntarily replaced the tractor or refunded the amount rather than engaging the complainant in continuous rounds of litigation. The facts of the tractor continuously developing defects is not disputed. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the District Forum need no interference. We also see that at the State Commission level, blame is attempted to be passed on the lawyer of the petitioner who as per order sheets of the Commission brought on record shows regular absence. It is a pity that the appeal was not dismissed in default/for non-prosecution at the earlier stage. The whole conduct of the petitioner leaves much to be desired. If there is any deficiency noticed on the part of the lawyer of the petitioner, they should have proceeded against him as per law. The complainant cannot be made to suffer for inaction on the part of the petitioner. We see that one day’s delay could have been condoned. The conduct of the petitioner before the State Commission as well as our own examination of the case on merits does lead us to one conclusion only, that is that the petitioner was deficient in rendering service to the complainant. We are unable to sustain this revision petition, hence, dismissed. No order as to costs.