This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing; in the presence of Sri. Kilaru Laxmi Narasimha Rao, Advocate for complainant; and of Sri. Kolli Satyanarayana, Advocate for Opposite parties No.1&2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of JCB machine bearing No.AP-20-Q-9903, for which, the complainant purchased some spare parts from the opposite parties.  The opposite parties supplied about 60 kinds of spare parts by collecting Rs.1,81,646/- including VAT on 26-01-2011.  Thereafter, on 29-01-2011, they also supplied 6 kinds of oils on payment of Rs.32,517/-, out of which, the hydraulic pump worth of Rs.44,625.22/-, was not functioned properly and as such the machine was kept idle and the same was informed to the opposite party No.1 by requesting to replace or refund the amount.  The complainant further submitted that he incurred much loss due to non-functioning of hydraulic pump, which is an important part for functioning of JCB machine.  Therefore, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 on many times but the opposite party No.1 did not respond properly and postponed the matter on one pretext to other and replied that it has been waiting for the reply from the opposite party No.2, believing the same, approached the opposite party No.1 through all the way and as there is no response, issued legal notice on 23-07-2011 inspite  of receipt of legal notice, there is no response from the opposite parties and as such lost his hope, approached this Forum by alleging the deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and prayed to direct them to pay cost of Hydraulic Pump at Rs.44,625.22/- including VAT and Rs.15,000/- towards damages and costs. 

3.       In support of his case, the complainant filed affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A3.

4.       After service of notice, the opposite party No.1 filed its counter by denying all the averments of complaint except purchasing of Hydraulic Pump and other spare parts through invoice No.24, dt. 26-01-2011 and further submitted that after purchase of spare parts, the service engineer of opposite party No.1 had verified and himself fixed the machinery according to the instructions of complainant and after installation, the Hydraulic pump was worked properly, since then, the complainant did not raise any objection regarding non-functioning of Hydraulic Pump till the date of filing of complaint.  The complainant did not mention the particulars regarding the repairs and failed to file any proof or opinion of any authorized service engineer or mechanic regarding the non-functioning of Hydraulic Pump.  Therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs as the complaint is not maintainable basing on aforesaid facts. 

5.       In view of above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

Point:-        

It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased Hydraulic Pump for his JCB Machine from the opposite parties along with other spare parts on 26-01-2011.  Within few days the Hydraulic pump was started giving troubles and not functioned properly, upon which, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 on many times by requesting to replace the defective Hydraulic pump or to refund the cost of the pump and alleged that the opposite parties did not respond to solve the problem despite many requests.  Therefore, knocked this Forum on his grievance.  To prove his case, the complainant filed exhibits A1 to A3.  Exhibits A1 and A2 are the purchasing bills of spare parts, Exhibit A3 is the legal notice.  Except that, no documents were filed on behalf of complainant.  Even did not file any proof or any scientific opinion in support of his allegation regarding non-functioning of Hydraulic Pump since its purchase, in the absence of any opinion or documentary proof, we cannot find out the real cause for non-functioning of Hydraulic Pump.  Mere allegation is not sufficient to hold that particular part is having manufacturing defect, in this regard we relied upon the decisions of  higher Forums.  In Prabhat Thakur and Ors Vs. TaTa Motors Ltd., and Ors (III 2015 CPJ 60 HP) and in IFFCO Tokio Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd., (III 2015 CPJ 6. Har) the Hon’ble State Commissions of Himachal Pradesh and Haryana categorically stated that in the absence of any expert report it cannot be said that there was any mechanical defect.

 In view of aforesaid discussion and in the light of above decisions we are of the opinion that in the absence of any sufficient proof we cannot find out the real cause for non-functionig of Hydraulic Pump and as such we cannot come to the conclusion basing on only mere allegations.  Therefore, the point is answered accordingly against the complainant.

6.       In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.   

           Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 30^th day of October, 2015.

                                                  FAC President               Member      

                                           District Consumer Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant                                                       For Opposite party  

       None                                                                             None

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant                                                       For Opposite party

FAC President               Member

     District Consumer Forum, Khammam