Haryana

StateCommission

A/302/2014

Sunil Dutt - Complainant(s)

Versus

Unity Earth Tech - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Chhikara

22 Nov 2016

ORDER

TATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.302 of 2014

Date of Institution: 03.04.2014 and 17.04.2014

                                                          Date of Decision: 22.11.2016

 

Sunil Dutt S/o Sh.Rameshwar Dass, R/o Village Hariahera, Tehsil Sohna, Distt.Gurgaon.

     …..Appellant

 

                                                Versus

 

1.      Unity  Earth Tech through its authorized person SCO 22, IInd second floor Sector 31 Gurgaon.

2.      Terex Vectra Equipments Private Limited through its authorized person, plot Number 30, Industrial Area, Veerwell complex, NIT Faridabad.

         …..Respondents

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Naren Partap Singh, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                   None for the respondent No.1.

                   Mr. Karamjeet Singh, Advocate counsel  for the respondent 2.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          It was alleged by the complainant that  he purchased JCB machine for self employment  and earning livelihood on 14.09.2007 from opposite party (O.P.) No.1 manufactured by O.P.No.2.  The machine was under full warranty for one year. The machine started giving trouble since very beginning and was taken to showroom of O.P.No.1 time and again to remove the defects. There was continuous problem of air locking, skipping etc. As there was major technical fault, the machine could not be used properly. He requested O.Ps. to replace machine or refund purchase amount, but, they refused to do so. O.P.Nos.1 and 2 be directed to replace the machine or to pay Rs.14,59,000/- excluding taxes  alongwith interest @ 18% per annum besides compensation qua mental harassment.

2.      As nobody appeared on behalf of O.Ps. No.1 and 2, so they were proceeded against ex parte by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (In short “District Forum”) vide order dated 17.04.2009.

3.      After evaluating the evidence produced by the complainant and hearing his counsel the complaint was dismissed by learned District Forum vide impugned order dated  03.03.2014.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant vehemently argued that  as per evidence available on the file it is clear that machine was giving problem since very beginning.  It was taken to O.P.No.1 time and again i.e. 20 times for repair.  Learned District Forum has not given the details of visits Ex. C-3/A to C-3/H. It is clearly mentioned in Ex.C-3/A to C-3/H that noise was coming from the engine time and again  or there was air locking problem.  It was not taken to the workshop for normal wear and tear  rather for major problems.  Expert reports Ex.CA, CB were ignored without any reason.  All these facts clearly shows that there was manufacturing defect in the machine and O.Ps. be directed to remove the same.

7.      We do agree with this contention. From the perusal of the following details, it will be clear that the machine was taken to O.P.No.1 time and again:-

“Invoice No./Date

Amount

Issued by

Description

DNUTG001A

/S849/22.09.2008

Rs.2771.37

Unity Earthtech Faridabad

Hose Assy Slew Transfer Hose Assy Bucket HD

DNUTG001A

/S827/11.09.2008

Rs.23081.54

Unity Earthtech Faridabad

Transmission Tx25 Ltr, Oil Filter-Trans Gasket, Brether, Element-Suction fitting

DNUTG001A

/S/155/17.09.2007

Rs.208.69

Unity Earthtech Gurgaon

Fitting

DNUTG001A

/S/170/27.09.2007

Rs.11010

Unity Earthtech Gurgaon

Transmission Tx 25 Ltr, Oil Filter Trans, Hoseassy, Dipper Hd

DNUTG001A

/S/745/28.08.2008

Rs.1155

Unity Earthtech Gurgaon

Pin, Washer, Pin Spirol 5-26

DNUTG001A

/S/501/22.04.2008

Rs.1476

Unity Earthtech Gurgaon

Cable Asy Foot Throttle, Throttle Cable Assy, Bonnet Lock Assy.

DNUTG001A

/S/828/11.09.2008

Rs.5533

Unity Earthtech Faridabad

King pin, Bush top stub axle carl. Bush bottom stub Axle carr, cotton Pin, Nut lock, thrush bush, oil seal, circlip

DNUTG001A

/S/471/09.04.2008

Rs.3134

Unity Earthtech Gurgaon

Bush, Door Lock LH, Widow Lock Assy, micro switch Assly, washer, Bush etc.

FBD/0201/16.08.2008

Rs.127

Unity Earthtech Faridabad

Fuse 60 Amp Fuse 100 Amp

2362/08.12.2007

Rs.4517

PR Sales & Services

Coil 13 ltd oil filter, fuel filter micro, Air filter primary Air filter secondary mico”

 As per Ex.C-3/A to Ex.C-3/H complainant also visited different dates to workshop of O.P. for repair, which is as under:-

“10.06.2008,24.03.2008,17.04.2008, 23.10.2007,13.09.2008,16.09.2008”

          It shows that the O.P.No.1 was approached time and again to repair the JCB machine because there was  regular problem. It is well settled preposition of law that report of expert is not necessary in each and every case to determine whether there was manufacturing defect in any vehicle or not.  This fact can be looked into by the Commission as per evidence available on the file as opined by Hon’ble National Commission in Telco Vs. Hardip Singh and Anr. 100 2011 (3 CLT 382, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Ram Lakhan, 2014 (2) CPJ 760 and Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra and Anr. 220 2010 (2) COPT, 363 that if a vehicle is taken to the workshop time and again for repairs it can be considered as manufacturing defect.  It is opined therein that in the absence of expert opinion it cannot be presumed that there is manufacturing defect.  In Ex.CA and CB it is mentioned that the machine was giving the problem.  From the perusal of the letter head of workshop i.e. Ex.CA and Ex.CB it is clear that it is pertaining  to JCB workshop, so it cannot be presumed that these were  given by an ordinary person.  More so, when complainant produced this evidence it was the duty of the O.Ps. to rebut the same.  Not to talk of producing evidence, O.Ps. preferred to be proceeded against ex parte. In view of above discussion it is clear that there was manufacturing defect in the machine. Hence impugned order dated 03.03.2014 is hereby set aside. Appeal as well as complaint are allowed and O.ps. are directed to replace the JCB machine within 30 days from the date of receipt of order otherwise to refund the amount paid by the complainant alongwith interest @ 09% from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. Complainant is also entitled for Rs.21,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5100/- as litigation charges.

 

November 22, 2016    Urvashi Agnihotri         R.K.Bishnoi                                                Member                         Judicial Member                                        Addl. Bench                  Addl.Bench                 

S.K.

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.