IMPORTANT POINT
Findings of fact cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction.

Ashok Bhan, President—Petitioner is the Dealer of J.C.B. India Private Limited, respondent No. 2 herein.

2. Respondent/complainant purchased a Hydraulic Oil Pump from the petitioner by paying Rs. 29,095. Within one month of purchase of the aforesaid pump, it was found that the same was defective. The pump was taken to the petitioner’s workshop for repair, but the petitioner refused to repair the same on the ground that the petitioner was not liable to repair the same free of cost. Complainant/respondent, thereafter, filed a complaint before the District Forum.

3. Before the District Forum, JCB India Private Limited, the manufacturer was not arrayed as a party respondent. District Forum after going through the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was liable to repair the Hydraulic Oil Pump and accordingly, directed the petitioner to either repair the Hydraulic Oil Pump within seven weeks of receipt of the pump or to pay back the consideration amount of Rs. 29,095 along with costs which were quantified at Rs.350.

4. Petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission. Before the State Commission, JCB India Private Limited was ordered to be arrayed as respondent No. 2. Notices were issued to the manufacturer as well. The State Commission directed that the concerned technician of the manufacturing company should be permitted to examine the pump for the purpose of carrying out the repair of the said pump. The pump was handedover to the technician who submitted his report. Relevant part of the report reads as under:

“On the basis of the initial and technical observations and referring to part history, we have the conclusion that the said hydraulic pump which is offered for inspection is without identity, hence it is difficult to know the make, identification and other parameters being a reference due to which, we are in the doubt that whether the offered Hydraulic Pump is the same as issued/billed by us or not.

At the time of purchase of this hydraulic pump, the customer was made aware that the hydraulic pump is a vital part and is recommended to be replaced by a skilled service engineer of the authorized dealer. Moreover, it was also advised that hyd. pump replacement also needs flushing of old hydraulic oil from all the parts of the hydraulic system and refilling of company’s recommended hyd. oil and replacement of genuine hyd. Filter being mandatory but customer was more interest to save the cost of lubricants (oil) and consumables (hyd. Filter) and hence we had taken only hyd. Pump without adhering to the abovesaid guidelines.

The failure of hyd. pump occurred due to carelessness made at the time of fitment of new pump and no proper care is taken as mentioned earlier.

We recommend to have neat and clean hydraulic system and oil. Hence we recommend flushing of hyd. System and remove old hyd. oil by new genuine hyd. oil because it remains in the form of metal particles and . foreign materials move in the hyd. system and enter in the hyd. pump and get in between the pump body and gear as the hyd. pump is a gear pump and rotated as per the engine rpm an this remaining defects the suction body and generates clearing between the gear and body resulting in seepage of hyd. oil due to which the required flow is not achieved. Hence, once body is worn out, the pump is treated as failed and is not repairable.

In this case, the failure of hydraulic pump is of the same nature as customer had not taken any care, due to which the metal particles and foreign material had circulated into the hydraulic pump. Due to body wearing, the clearance between the gear and the body had increased and the body is non-repairable and non-serviceable part.

5. The State Commission rejected the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the respondent had replaced the hydraulic pump with some other pump and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present revision petit