ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 10.03.2017 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.401/2014 title Rajinder Singh vs. Mehboob Akhtar & Ors. Brief facts of Consumer Complaint: 2. Complainant Rajinder Singh filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against opposite parties pleaded therein that complainant purchased tractor bearing chassis No. T07022297J13, engine No. D10026449 Balwan 400 in consideration amount of Rs. 480000/- (Four lac eight thousand). It is pleaded that complainant in total paid sum of Rs. 532410/- (Five lac thirty two thousand four hundred ten) out of which amount of Rs. 300000/- (Three lac) was paid vide receipt No. 039 dated 28.03.2014 and amount of Rs. 232410/- (Two lac thirty two thousand four hundred ten) was paid vide receipt No. 036. It is pleaded that in the total sum of Rs. 532410/-(Five lac thirty two thousand four hundred ten) insurance amount of tractor was also included. It is further pleaded that cover note was issued by co-respondent No.1 to the complainant through opposite party No.2 wherein it was mentioned that vehicle was insured w.e.f. 04.04.2014 to 03.04.2015. It is further pleaded that cheque No. 158226 issued by co-respondent No.1 amounting to Rs. 29093/- (Twenty nine thousand ninety three) relating to insurance policy was dishonoured by the bank. It is further pleaded that due to non-payment of premium tractor of complainant was not insured with corespondent No.2. It is further pleaded that within ten days manufacturing defect was found in the tractor. It is further pleaded that despite several requests manufacturing defect was not removed. It is further pleaded that complainant also requested corespondent No.1 to insure the tractor with co-respondent No.2 against the amount which was already received from the complainant but co-respondent No.1 did not accept the request of the complainant. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 1000000/- (Ten lac) in lump-sum alongwith interest @12% per annum. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 pleaded therein that complainant purchased tractor and it is admitted that tractor was financed by PNB Bhota District Hamirpur H.P. It is pleaded that tractor was sold to the complainant in consideration amount of Rs. 532410/- (Five lac thirty two thousand four hundred ten). It is admitted that sum of Rs. 532410/- (Five lac thirty two thousand four hundred ten). It is admitted that sum of Rs. 300000/- (Three lac) was paid vide receipt No. 039 and it is also admitted that sum of Rs. 232410/- (Two lac thirty two thousand four hundred ten) was paid vide receipt No.036. It is also admitted that complainant has paid total consideration amount of Rs. 532410/-(Five lac thirty two thousand four hundred ten). It is denied that there was manufacturing defect in the tractor. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint against opposite party No.1 sought. 4. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No.2 pleaded therein that tractor was plied for commercial vehicle and consumer forum has no jurisdiction. It is pleaded that vehicle was not insured with opposite party No.2. It is further pleaded that cheque to the tune of Rs. 29093/- (Twenty nine thousand ninety three) issued by co-respondent No.1 relating to premium was dishonoured. It is further pleaded that cover note issued by opposite party No.2 was cancelled being void ab initio and written intimation was conveyed. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint against opposite party No.2 sought. 5. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No.3 pleaded therein that opposite party No.1 is authorized dealer of opposite party No.3 and relationship between opposite parties No.1 and 3 are on principal to principal basis. It is pleaded that opposite party No.3 does not have any privity of contract with complainant. It is pleaded that there was no manufacturing defect in the tractor. It is further pleaded that even as per warranty condition refund of entire sale consideration amount is not permissible and only repair of defective parts is permissible. It is pleaded that slippage of gear was due to mishandling of tractor. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint against opposite party No.3 sought. 6. Complainant filed rejoinders and reasserted the allegations mentioned in the complaint. 7. Learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint against opposite party No.1 and ordered opposite party No.1 to pay lump-sum compensation to the tune of Rs. 40000/-(Forty thousand) to the complainant. In addition learned District Forum ordered opposite party No.1 to pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 3000/- (Three thousand) to the complainant. Learned District Forum dismissed the consumer complaint against opposite parties No.2 & 3. 8. 40000/-(Forty thousand) to the complainant. In addition learned District Forum ordered opposite party No.1 to pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 3000/- (Three thousand) to the complainant. Learned District Forum dismissed the consumer complaint against opposite parties No.2 & 3. 8. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission for enhancement of amount. 9. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 10. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 11. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent purchased tractor from opposite party No.1 in sale consideration amount of Rs. 480000/-(Four lac eight thousand). There is further recital in the affidavit that complainant in total paid sum of Rs. 532410/- (Five lac thirty two thousand four hundred ten) out of which amount of Rs. 300000/- (Three lac) was paid vide receipt No. 039 dated 28.03.2014 and amount of Rs. 232410/- (Two lac thirty two thousand four hundred ten) was paid vide receipt No. 036. There is further recital in the affidavit that tractor was financed by PNB Bhota District Hamirpur H.P. There is further recital in the affidavit that before delivery of tractor deponent had paid amount of Rs. 532410/-(Five lac thirty two thousand four hundred ten) to the opposite party No.1 including insurance charges. There is further recital in the affidavit that cover note was also issued by co-respondent No.2. There is further recital in the affidavit that cheque No. 158226 issued by co-respondent No.1 amounting to Rs. 29093/-(Twenty nine thousand ninety three) as premium of insurance policy was dishonoured by the bank. There is further recital in the affidavit that after delivery of tractor within ten days manufacturing defect occurred in the tractor. There is further recital in the affidavit that despite several requests manufacturing defect was not removed. There is further recital in the affidavit that defect was occurred within warranty period. 12. Opposite party No.1 filed affidavit of Mehboob Akhtar in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent sold the tractor to the complainant in consideration amount of Rs. 532410/-(Five lac thirty two thousand four hundred ten). There is further recital in the affidavit that defect was occurred within warranty period. 12. Opposite party No.1 filed affidavit of Mehboob Akhtar in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent sold the tractor to the complainant in consideration amount of Rs. 532410/-(Five lac thirty two thousand four hundred ten). There is further recital in the affidavit that before delivery of tractor complainant had paid amount of Rs. 532410/-(Five lac thirty two thousand four hundred ten) to opposite party No.1. There is further recital in the affidavit that tractor was financed by PNB Bhota District Hamirpur H.P. There is further recital in the affidavit that there was no manufacturing defect in the tractor. 13. Opposite party No.2 filed affidavit of Amol Adgaonkar in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that tractor was not insured with opposite party No.2. There is further recital in the affidavit that cheque bearing No.158226 in consideration amount of Rs. 29093/-(Twenty nine thousand ninety three) issued by co-respondent No.1 as premium of insurance policy was dishonoured by the bank. There is further recital in the affidavit that insurance policy was cancelled being void ab initio by the opposite party No.2. 14. Opposite party No.3 filed affidavit of Pritam Singh in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that opposite party No.3 has established quality control procedure. There is further recital in the affidavit that there was no manufacturing defect in the tractor. There is further recital in the affidavit that fault occurred due to mishandling of tractor. There is further recital in the affidavit that liability of company is limited to repair only under warranty condition during the warranty period. There is further recital in the affidavit that relationship between opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No.3 is on principal to principal basis and there is no relationship of principal and agent. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party No.3 has no vicarious liability for the act of omission and commission of opposite party No.1. 15. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that defect occurred in the gear of tractor during the warranty period and opposite parties No.1 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to repair the defect occurred during the warranty period without any charges is decided accordingly. 15. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that defect occurred in the gear of tractor during the warranty period and opposite parties No.1 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to repair the defect occurred during the warranty period without any charges is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused receipt No. 036 issued by opposite party No.1 on behalf of opposite party No.3. It is proved on record that vide receipt No.036 opposite party No.3 through opposite party No.1 received consideration amount of Rs. 232410/- (Two lac thirty two thousand four hundred ten) from the complainant on account of advance of tractor. It is also proved on record that vide receipt No. 039 dated 28.03.2014 opposite party No.3 through its dealer opposite party No.1 received consideration amount of Rs. 300000/- (Three lac) from the complainant as payment of tractor. Mehboob Akhtar Force i.e. opposite party No.1 has issued receipts to the complainant qua sale of tractor on behalf of manufacturer Force Motors Limited i.e. opposite party No.3. It is held that opposite party No.3 is vicariously liable for the act and conduct of its dealer. In the certificate annexure A dated 05.10.2014 issued by Ajit Kumar mechanic there is positive recital that tractor purchased by complainant sustained defect in the gear of tractor during warranty period. State Commission is of the opinion that opposite parties No.1 & 3 are jointly and severally liable to remove the defect of gear box occurred in the tractor during the warranty period without charges. 16. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is legally entitled to sum of Rs. 532410/-(Five lac thirty two thousand four hundred ten) alongwith interest @12% per annum as sale price of tractor is decided accordingly. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that opposite parties No.1 and 3 have issued guarantee card to the complainant. It is held that replacement of entire tractor is permissible only in case of guarantee card. It is held that there is difference between guarantee and warranty. It is held that guarantee and warranty are two different concepts under law. In guarantee entire replacement of good is permissible and in warranty only repair of defective parts of good is permissible. It is held that replacement of entire tractor is permissible only in case of guarantee card. It is held that there is difference between guarantee and warranty. It is held that guarantee and warranty are two different concepts under law. In guarantee entire replacement of good is permissible and in warranty only repair of defective parts of good is permissible. In the absence of any guarantee card in favour of complainant it is held that complainant is not entitled for the refund of entire sale consideration amount of Rs. 532410/-(Five lac thirty two thousand four hundred ten) from opposite parties No.1 and 3 and it is held that complainant is not entitled for replacement of new tractor. It is held that complainant is only entitled for the replacement of defective parts of tractor. See 2000 (1) CPJ 3 Punjab Eko Electronics vs. Sh. Kuldip Sharma & Ors. 17. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is legally entitled to amount of Rs. 400000/- (Four lac) for mental harassment and tension is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that learned District Forum has reasonably granted compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 40000/- (Forty thousand). State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to enhance the compensation granted by learned District Forum. 18. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is legally entitled to amount of Rs. 67590/- (Sixty seven thousand five hundred ninety) as litigation costs is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that learned District Forum has reasonably granted litigation costs to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 3000/- (Three thousand) and it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to enhance the litigation costs granted by learned District Forum because complainant did not place on record advocate fee certificate issued by advocate. 19. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party No.1 that opposite party No.1 is not liable because opposite party No.1 has issued receipts as authorized dealer of opposite party No.3 is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that opposite parties No.1 & 3 are jointly and severally liable because opposite party No.1 has issued receipts of sale consideration amount of Rs. State Commission is of the opinion that opposite parties No.1 & 3 are jointly and severally liable because opposite party No.1 has issued receipts of sale consideration amount of Rs. 532410/-(Five lac thirty two thousand four hundred ten) as authorized dealer of opposite party No.3. It is held that opposite party No.1 could not be exonerated from the liability because opposite party No.1 has directly received sale consideration amount from the complainant as authorized dealer of opposite party No.3. 20. Opposite parties No.2 and 2-A are not liable because no premium of insurance policy was paid to opposite parties No.2 & 2-A. It is proved on record that premium to the tune of Rs. 29093/- (Twenty nine thousand ninety three) was paid to the opposite party No.2 vide cheque bearing No.158226. It is proved on record that cheque was dishonoured. In view of the fact that opposite parties No.2 & 2-A did not receive any premium of insurance policy hence opposite parties No.2 & 2-A are exonerated from liability. 21. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party No.3 that tractor was sold by opposite party No.1 to complainant on Principal to Principal basis and opposite party No.3 be exonerated is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused receipts No.036 and 039 issued by opposite party No.1 qua sale of tractor to the complainant. It is proved on record that opposite party No.1 has issued sale receipts of tractor as authorized dealer of Force Motors Limited i.e. opposite party No.3. It is held that Force Motors is vicariously liable for the act of its authorized dealer. In view of the fact that sale consideration amounts receipts issued by opposite party No.1 as authorized dealer of opposite party No.3 it is held that opposite party No.3 could not be exonerated from the liability. See 2016 (III) CPJ 521 NC G. Krishna Kumar & Anr. vs. Har Auto Private Ltd. & Ors. See 1997 (2) CPC 85 H.P. M/s. Golden Forests India Ltd. vs. Smt. Sumitra Devi & Anr. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 22. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is partly allowed and it is ordered that opposite parties No.1 and 3 would jointly and severally replace the entire gear box of the tractor without claiming any charges because defect occurred in the gear box of tractor during warranty period. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 22. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is partly allowed and it is ordered that opposite parties No.1 and 3 would jointly and severally replace the entire gear box of the tractor without claiming any charges because defect occurred in the gear box of tractor during warranty period. Other parts of order passed by learned District Forum affirmed. Consumer complaint against opposite parties No.2 & 2-A insurance company is dismissed. Order of learned District Forum is modified to this extent only. Receipt No.036 relating to sale consideration amount of Rs. 232410/- (Two lac thirty two thousand four hundred ten) qua tractor and receipt No.039 relating to sale consideration amount of Rs. 300000/- (Three lac) qua tractor and mechanical report annexure A issued by Ajit Kumar dated 05.10.2014 shall form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.