JUDGMENT : This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is directed against the order dated 3-3-2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satna in Case No. 360/08, whereby the Forum has directed the present appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 36,005/- within 45 days as the amount required to be spent by the respondent on his tractor, pay Rs. 10,000/- for deficiency in service and if the amount is not paid within 45 days, to pay 12% interest from 11-7-2008. 2. It is not disputed that an old tractor bearing registration No. MP 20 H 2774 was of the ownership of the respondent No. 1 -complainant, which was given for repairs to appellant, especially for change of bushes on 17-5-2008. Bushing job was to be done by respondent No. 2. The tractor was repaired and returned on 24-6-2008 but when it was being taken home it gave trouble and stopped. The respondent No. 1 -complainant submits that he had again paid Rs. 36,005/- to some third party for the repairs of the tractor for which the appellant had already charged Rs. 82,932/-. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that sum of Rs. 82,932/- also represents the parts of the value of Rs. 77,171/-. 3. First contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that there is no pleading to the effect that Rs. 36,005/- had been paid to third party for repairs of the tractor after it gave trouble after repairs by the appellant. Learned Counsel has cited Vinod Kumar Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, III (2011) CPJ 194 (NC), that it is well-settled, pleadings are not to flow from evidence but evidence is to be confined to pleadings. In absence of pleadings, evidence, if any, cannot be considered. 4. I have gone through the complaint under Section 12 of the Act and it is found that there is no mention in the complaint that after the tractor was repaired by the appellant the respondent No. 1-complainant had to take the tractor to other workshops for getting it repaired. Under these circumstances, the bill submitted by way of evidence is inconsistent with the pleadings. The order of the District Forum cannot be sustained. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. Under these circumstances, the bill submitted by way of evidence is inconsistent with the pleadings. The order of the District Forum cannot be sustained. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. However, it is directed that the appellant shall repair the tractor of the respondent No. 1 within 30 days from its delivery at the workshop to the satisfaction of the complainant.