DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA
RBT/Consumer Complaint No.320 of 2018
Date of institution: 09.5.2018
Date of Decision: 17.05.2022
Jaswant Rai aged about 45 years son of Sh. Thakur Dev, resident of Village Daba, Tehsil & District Ludhiana
….Complainant
Versus
M/s Indo Farm Equipment Limited, Head Office & Plant: EPIP, Phase II, Baddi-173205, District Solan, H.P. through its Managing Director/Director/Chairman/authorized signatory.
- ……..Opposite Party
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act
Quorum: Shri Ranjit Singh, President.
Mrs. Ranvir Kaur, Member
Present: Sh. Ravi Kumar Sharma, Adv. for complainant
Sh. Amit Kumar, Advocate, for OP
Order dictated by :- Shri Ranjit Singh, President
Order
The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, received by way of transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana by the complainant against the Opposite Party on the ground that the complainant had purchased one Hydraulic Pick N Carry (23TX75) STD from the OP manufactured by the Ops company vide invoice No.90902204 dated 29.6.2017 for Rs.19,19,000/-. At the time of booking the said machine, the representative of company namely Jagdeep Singh, resident of Baba Deep Singh Nagar, opposite GNE College, Ludhiana, received an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- through cheque No.476711 dated 3.6.2011 at Ludhiana and thereafter the complainant also paid one another cheque of Rs.6,27,840/- to the said Jagdeep Singh at Ludhiana. Moreover, the complainant got sanctioned loan of Rs.12,00,000/- for the purchase of the said machine from Indusind Bank, Ludhiana Branch. The machine in question is self manufactured by the OP. At the time of purchasing the said crane/machine, the OP allured the complainant that the said machine is one of the best CNC machine as available in the market and the OP also assured that in near future the complainant will not face any problem pertaining to the said machine and if any problem arises in the said machine, then the OP will be fully responsible for the same. Even the OP gave warrantee of six month of the said machine to the complainant, as per the OP company assurance the complainant purchased crane/machine from the OP. It is further alleged that after getting the possession of the said crane/machine, the complainant started working with the said machine, then it came to the notice that there is some problem in the bench machine, gear, break, front glass and now there is problem in engine. The complainant immediately informed the same to the OP, but the OP assured him that the machine will work properly and will not create any trouble in the operation. Thereafter, the OP sent their engineer to the complainant, who inspected the machine and did some technical work with the machine and asked him to operate the same, but on operating the said machine, the complainant found that the said defect has not been removed. Thereafter, the OP engineer again did some technical work o the machine and asked the complainant that the defect in the said machine incurable and asked him that the said machine is within guarantee period and replace the same with the new one. The complainant time and again approaching the OP and requesting the OP do the needful, but the OP did not give any satisfactory reply to the same, because of the act of the OP company, the complainant suffered loss in his work, profession and repudiation and the same machine was having other major issues from the very first day of the purchase of the machine. The aforesaid act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and it has caused mental as well as physical agony and also caused inconvenience to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-
- To direct the OP to replace the machine in question with the new one
- To pay Rs.75,000/- as compensation to the complainant in the interest of justice.
- Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled to be also granted to the complainant in the interest of justice.
- Upon notice, the O.P. has filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complaint of the complainant is not legally maintainable before this Commission; that the complaint of complainant is hopelessly time barred as the same has been filed by the complainant after the expiry of warranty period of six months; that the complaint of the complainant is false, frivolous, misconceived as the complainant never reported any manufacturing defect or any other type of difficulty in the Hydraulic Pick’n Carry/Crane within warranty period; that the complainant has not placed on record any technical expert report to prove the averments raised in this para. On merits, it is stated that technical person of the OP inspected the said crane/machine on regular call and did some technical work with the machine and asked the complainant to operate the same. It is denied that engineer asked the complainant that the defect in the said machine incurable and asked him that the said machine is within guarantee period and replace the same with the new one. Rest of the allegations leveled by the complainant against the OP have been denied and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.
- The complainant has tendered various documents in the shape of evidence. On the other hand, the OPs have also tendered various documents in the shape of evidence.
- We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case.
- It is admitted fact the complainant had purchased the one Hydraulic Pick’n Carry from the OP for a sum of Rs.19,19,000/-, which was hypothecated by Indusind Bank. From the perusal of the record file and documents has placed on record by the complainant and Ops, it is clear that the machine in question purchased by the complainant and it was giving trouble and after repeated visit of the engineer of the OP, the error occurred in the machine not yet removed by the OP. The complainant has not placed on record any document to show that when the machine gave trouble, at that time it was under the warranty. In support of his claim the complainant has placed on record Ex.C1 i.e. purchase order, Ex.C2 is the statement, Ex.C3 is the payment credit advice, Ex.C4 is the deliver order, Ex.C5 is the invoice dated 29.6.2017, Ex.C6 is the Registration Certificate, Ex.C7 is the form 51 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, Ex.C10 is the Field Service Report and other documents.
- In view of the above said discussion, we disposed of the complaint with the direction to OP to repair/replace the part of the machine, which is giving trouble at that time as per satisfaction of the complainant. In case, if the machine cannot be repaired then replace the same with the new one. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the record room.
Announced
May 18, 2022
(Ranvir Kaur) (Ranjit Singh)
Member President
CC No.320 of 2018
Sh. Amit Kumar, Adv. for Ops
Arguments completed. Vide our separate detailed order of today, the complaint stands disposed of. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the record room.
May,18 2022
(Ranjit Singh)
(Ranvir Kaur)
