JUDGMENT As per S.K. Kulshrestha, J.: - These appeals are directed against the order dated 23-8-2007 passed by the District Forum, Sagar, in Case No. 222/2005 and No. 224/2005 respectively. 2. It is not disputed between the parties that the complainant-Hallebhai in Case No. 222/2005 and Ramdas in Case No. 224/2005 had purchased a tractor 240 DI Model with seed drill from the respondent No. 4 - OSO Tractors dealer of tractors S.A.S. Motors Ltd. It was assured that the tractor was in good order and in perfect condition. 3. The tractor started giving trouble frequently for which it was taken to the dealer for repairs but still the condition did not improve. The owner therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum complaining about the poor condition of the tractor and seeking replacement/refund. 4. The tractor was also sent for laboratory examination and was tested by the Department of Agriculture and Co-operation which by report dated 21st August, 2006 found that the tractor was in perfect condition except that it was not recommended for wetland cultivation by the manufacturer. This restriction was imposed by the manufacturer itself and, therefore, it cannot be said to be a drawback in the machine. A report dated 17th August, 2006 from the Government of India, Central Farm Machinery Training & Testing Institute, Budni has also given clearance and stated that the tractor has completed all the tests without any further modifications and change of components. 5. The District Forum has rightly observed that it was because the complainant wanted to purchase a tractor of more capacity, the present complaint has been filed alleging defects in the tractor and complaining about poor conditions of the tractor. The tractor was in perfect condition. 6. Considering the test report and laboratory test report, we find that there is nothing wrong with the tractor and no direction can be issued against the dealer, manufacturer or any of the other respondents. The appeals are dismissed.