DSCDRC January 7, 2026 : The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed an appeal filed by a farmer against a tractor dealer and manufacturer, holding that the inspection report relied upon by the complainant was fabricated and that no manufacturing defect was proved through credible expert evidence.
The appeal arose from a complaint filed by Mange Ram against M/s Amar Tractor and Auto Agencies and Sonalika International Tractors Ltd. The complainant had purchased a Sonalika tractor on 6 May 2009 for ₹4.70 lakh and alleged that the dealer failed to provide the Registration Certificate and insurance policy despite repeated requests. He further claimed that the tractor suffered from several defects, including fuel pump issues, oil leakage, overheating, tyre slippage while turning, and excessive diesel consumption.
According to the complainant, engineers of the opposite parties inspected the tractor on multiple occasions, with a final inspection allegedly conducted on 18 June 2010. He claimed that an inspection report prepared on that date recorded manufacturing defects. When the alleged defects were not rectified, a legal notice dated 27 July 2010 was issued seeking rectification and compensation of ₹2 lakh. This eventually led to a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I (North District), Tis Hazari Courts.
The District Forum dismissed the complaint on 31 July 2017, holding that the complainant had failed to establish any manufacturing defect through reliable expert evidence. Challenging this decision, the complainant approached the State Commission in First Appeal No. 464 of 2017.
A Bench comprising Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President, and Pinki, Judicial Member, upheld the District Forum’s order and declined to interfere. The State Commission found that the inspection report dated 18 June 2010, which formed the backbone of the complainant’s case, was wholly unreliable. It noted that the report did not bear the signatures of any of the engineers who were said to have inspected the tractor and was instead signed by a third person. The Commission also found it suspicious that the report was addressed to one of the engineers who was himself claimed to be part of the inspection team. Further, the language used in the report did not reflect the standard expected from qualified engineers, raising serious doubts about its authenticity.
The Commission also agreed with the District Forum that no independent expert or technical evidence had been produced to prove a manufacturing defect. On the contrary, affidavits filed by the dealer and the manufacturer, including that of a senior engineer, showed that the tractor suffered only from minor running and maintenance issues attributable to misuse and irregular servicing, such as failure to maintain adequate water levels in the radiator.
Affidavits filed by two individuals claiming that the tractor was second-hand were also rejected, as they introduced a new case beyond the original complaint and were unsupported by any documentary proof establishing their employment with the dealer.
Finding no deficiency in service on the part of either the dealer or the manufacturer, the State Commission held that the appeal was devoid of merit and affirmed the dismissal of the consumer complaint.
Case Reference : Mange Ram v. M/s Amar Tractor and Auto Agencies & Anr., First Appeal No. 464 of 2017, decided by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench comprising Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Pinki (Judicial Member).
