Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
M/s. Telco Construction Equipment
Company Ltd. and Anr. —Appellants
versus
Kongara Suryanarayana and Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal No.249 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 20/01/2016 in Complaint No. 84/2013 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
Decided on 16.3.2020
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 19 & 13 – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 41 & 38 – Defective equipment – Claim for – Scope – Respondent No. 1 complainant purchased a BACKHOE LOADER construction equipment vehicle manufactured by appellant – For a sum of Rs. 21,25,000/- – State Commission found satisfied that defects were of such nature which could clearly determine deficiency on part of opposite parties, therefore, State Commission did not ask for any expert opinion – Defects in machine were not so that there was no need to appoint any expert for deciding the deficiency in service – It is true that vehicle remained with the complainant for about a year and therefore the total refund of price of vehicle may not be justified – Thus, 10% of the cost needs to be deducted from amount of refund – Thus impugned order of State Commission modified to the extent that appellants would be liable to pay refund of Rs. 19,12,500/- instead of Rs. 21,25,000 – as ordered by State Commission – Further direction issued. (Paras 17 to 21)
Result: Appeal allowed partly
ORDER
Prem Narain, Presiding Member—This appeal has been filed by the appellants M/s. Telco Construction Equipment Ltd. & Anr. against the order dated 20.01.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in CC No.84/2013.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/complainant purchased a BACKHOE LOADER construction equipment vehicle manufactured by Telco Construction Equipment Company Limited, appellants herein from the dealers respondents No.2 & 3 herein on 3.5.2011 for a sum of Rs.21,25,000/-. Within a few days i.e. on 09.5.2011 the vehicle started giving trouble. The defect was rectified by the service engineer of the dealer on the said day. Within a short time on 26.5.2011, the engine failed and it was replaced by a new engine on 27.5.2011. Notwithstanding the same, the vehicle was continuously giving trouble and the same was reported to the respondents No.3 & 4 on 13.6.2011, 19.7.2011 and 27.7.2011. On 29.8.2011 defects were again noticed in the engine after the vehicle was used for some time. It faced problems again on 20.10.2011 and on much persuasion, the same was rectified by the dealer. The vehicle again gave trouble in the month of April, 2012 and it was attended by the dealer on 30.4.2012. Likewise, the vehicle went on giving trouble in the month of May, 2012, and after it was found defective by the service engineer of the dealer i.e. respondent No.2 on 26.5.2012, on his advice, the complainant returned the vehicle to the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 received the vehicle on 3.6.2012 and the same has been in its custody ever since then. The complainant, therefore, was convinced that he has been supplied a defective vehicle and since then he was not inclined to take back the vehicle. He therefore, issued legal notice dated 27.6.2012 to opposite parties. While respondent No.2 and 3 did not give any reply, appellants issued a reply through their counsel on 4.7.2012 stating that the claim of the complainant/respondent No.1 was in process and a detailed response would be sent after the details were received from the concerned officials. But no further response came. Since there was no final response from any of the parties, he filed the complaint in question. Respondents No.2 and 3 filed their version virtually admitting the facts relating to the purchase of the vehicle and the defects including the replacement of engine and the repairs effected to the vehicle from time to time as alleged by the complainant. They, however, stated that the vehicle was fully repaired and was made road-worthy and as such there was no deficiency in service on their part. They further stated that they paid a sum of Rs.56,000/- to the complainant as compensation for keeping the vehicle idle for a period of 16 days during the repairs at Dharwad plant in Karnataka State. They further stated that on noticing some more defects they sent the vehicle for repairs to Nellore in Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly, after effecting repairs the complainant was informed through letter dated 19.6.2012 to take back the vehicle. He was also informed that he would be paid compensation at Rs.3000/- per day during the repair period at Nellore. Therefore, according to them, there is no deficiency on their part. They further stated that the complainant is not a consumer and hence, the dispute in question is not maintainable. The appellants also filed version. While broadly admitting the defects complained by the complainant, they alleged that the defects were due to the improper handling and operation of the vehicle. According to them, the problems had crept in because the machine was put to use in a haphazard manner by inexperienced person. Their case is that the defects pointed out by the complainant were not manufacturing defects and the same were ordinary wear and tear defects. They have further pleaded that the vehicle was made ready on 15.6.2012 and the complainant is entitled to
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
