2.	Mohan Chuksey, Learned Counsel appears for manufacturing company, which was opposite party No.1 before the Forum. None appears for opposite party No.3-dealer.
3.	In Appeal No. 1628/2003, although, the notice on opposite party- dealer still remains unserved this party has been served by publication in Appeal No. 2265/03. This party was ex-parte before the Forum also.
4.	We thus proceed to hear these appeals in the absence of the Complainant and ex-parte against opposite party dealer.
5.	The dispute before the Forum was regarding a tractor bearing registration No. MP 05 G 2578. The Complainant claimed to have purchased this tractor from opposite party-dealer-Durga tractor & Krishi Yantra. However, the date of purchase was not disclosed nor any document regarding sale or purchase of the vehicle was filed or proved in evidence. The Complainant further alleged that the tractor suffered some manufacturing defects and was taken away by the manufacturing company for repairs on 24-3-2001. He further alleged that thereafter the tractor was never returned to him. It is however significant to note that the registration of the tractor in the name of the Complainant took place for the first time on 7-7-2001. If that was so, then the Complainant was not the owner of the tractor on the date when it is said that the tractor was taken away for repair by the manufacturing company. The manufacturing company has explained that, in fact, the dispute was between this company and the dealer and since the dealer failed to pay the price of the tractor in question, the same was repossessed by the manufacturing company. It was further contended that the dealer has got this complaint filed falsely. It is further stated that the manufacturing company has already instituted a suit against the dealer for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,59,861/- in Civil Court at Chandigarh.
6.	As already stated, the Complainant was not the owner of the tractor and was thus not a consumer on the date i.e. 24-3-2001 when the cause of action was said to have arisen for filing of the present complaint. It is further significant to note that the Forum in para 15 of the order has clearly held that the Complainant could establish no manufacturing defect or deficiency in service on part of opposite parties. Still an order has been made for payment of Rs. 45,000/- and its adjustment towards the repairing charges of Rs. 43,000/- on the ground that after taking the tractor for repair in March 2001, no intimation was given to the Complainant that the tractor is ready for redelivery. As already pointed out, in March 2001, the Complainant was not the owner of the tractor and there was thus no question of giving any intimation to him for taking delivery or the tractor after payment of the repair bill. The entire order is based on misconception of factual and legal position and therefore, liable to be set aside.
7.	We accordingly allow appeal (No. 2265/03) of opposite party-manufacturer and set aside the impugned order. Appeal (No. 1628/03) filed by the Complainant is dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs, which the parties are left to bear their own as incurred.