NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member
Taken up through video conferencing
Action Construction Equipment Ltd.
and Anr. – Appellants
versus
Arun Singh and Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal No.550 of 2020
(Against the Order dated 20/02/2020 in Complaint No.4/2011 of the State Commission Bihar)
Decided on 2.8.2021
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 (Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 24) – First Appeal – Appeal filed against Order dt. 20.02.2020 of State Commission – Respondent purchased Backhoe Loader for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self-employment and paid Rs. 7.50 lakh from his own, Rs. 8.50 lakh by availing loan from a Finance Co. i.e., total Rs. 16.00 lakhs to authorized dealer of the Appellant – Machine did not work properly since installation and even after repair - Ingredients of ‘deficiency’ within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(g) of the Act 1986 manifestly clear per State Commission - State Commission ordered Appellant to handover repaired machine to Appellant, pay compensation for toss and injury by way of interest @10% p.a. on Rs. 16 lakhs i.e., purchase price of the machine from the date of its installation – Evident that State Commission has awarded reasonable and equitable compensation to the Respondent - No mis-appreciation of evidence, jurisdiction error, or legal principle ignored. (Paras 1, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12 & 14)
Result: Appeal is misconceived, frivolous and vexatious; hence, dismissed with cost of Rs. 10 thousand
ORDER
Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member.—This First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 1986’, in challenge to the Order dated 20.02.2020 in C.C. No. 04 of 2011 passed by The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’.
The Appellants No. 1 and No. 2, Action Construction Equipment Ltd., were the Opposite Parties No. 1 and No. 2 before the State Commission, and are hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Manufacturer’.
The Respondent No. 1, Mr. Arun Singh, was the Complainant before the State Commission, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Complainant’.
The Respondent No. 2, Sri Sai Construction, was the Opposite Party No. 3 before the State Commission, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Authorized Dealer’.
The Respondent No. 3, Sri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd., was the Opposite Party No. 4 before the State Commission, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Finance Co.’.
2. Heard arguments from Mr. Puneet Bajaj, learned Counsel for the Manufacturer.
3. This Appeal has been filed with self-admitted delay of “around 90 days”. In the interest of justice, to provide fair opportunity to the Manufacturer, to settle the matter on merit, the delay in filing the Appeal is condoned.
4. On 15.02.201 the following Order was made by this Commission:
Dated: 15th February 2021
Order
Taken up through video conferencing.
Arguments heard.
Order reserved.
The execution shall remain stayed if the direction contained in para 12 (“The machine be handed over to complainant by the ops.”) of the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 20.02.2020 is complied with to the satisfaction of the executing forum and the entire decretal amount as contained in para 13 of the said Order dated 20.02.2020 of the State Commission is deposited by the appellants with the State Commission.
Learned counsel submits, on instructions, that, out of the entire decretal amount that has to be deposited with the State Commission, the appellants will unconditionally pay Rs. 5,00,000/- to the complainant and deposit the balance decretal amount with the State Commission. The submission is recorded. The appellant shall be bound by the submission made by its learned counsel.
5. The material on record shows that the Complainant, an unemployed youth, purchased a Backhoe Loader AX-130, exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. He paid Rs. 7.50 lakh from his own resources and Rs. 8.50 lakh by availing loan from the Finance Co. i.e. total Rs. 16.00 lakh to the Authorized Dealer of the Manufacturer.
6. The State Commission, vide its impugned Order of 20.02.2020, has made a detailed appraisal of the evidence.
7. The proved facts manifestly evince that the subject machine was not working properly right from the beginning of its installation i.e. 20.02.2010, thereafter it stopped working completely and shut down on 06.03.2020. Despite repeated visits of the service engineer of the Manufacturer and repair works and even after replacement of parts with new parts twice, the defects in the machine continued. It was again taken by the Manufacturer for repair work during the pendency of the Complaint before the State Commission. It was stated before the State Commission that the repair work was completed finally and the machine was in a position to be handed over to the Complainant on 17.05.2018. An inspection report dated 07.06.2018 was filed by the Manufacturer stating therein that all defects in the subject machine had (now) been removed and it was (now) in order and defect-free (para 9 of the State Commission’s Order).
8. The State Commission has observed that the facts and circumstances of the case indicate the recurring of defects in the machine right from the beginning of its installation and inspite of repair works and replacement of parts (which has not been denied by the Manufacturer and
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.