ORDER

Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II—These appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have been directed against the judgment and order dated 28.05.2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dehradun (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 381 of 2012 styled as Sh. Mukesh Tomar Vs. Doosan Infracore India Pvt. Ltd. and others, wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed by the District Commission directing the opposite parties, jointly and severally, to provide new compressor in place of old one alongwith Rs. 5,00,000/- incurred by the complainant as rent of J.C.B. and Rs. 3,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of judgment. In default simple interest shall be payable @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of consumer complaint till its actual realization.

2. As both the appeals have arisen from the same judgment and order dated 28.05.2015, therefore, it is just, proper and appropriate to decide them together for the sake of convenience.

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant has filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging himself as a resident of Langa Road, Vikasnagar, Dehradun, who was involved in the business of contractor and for the contract work he purchased Doosan Air Compressor Portable Stone Air 2 Model on 29.02.2012 amounting to Rs. 5,94,999/- from the respondent No. 2 – opposite party No. 1. In the complaint, the complainant has averred that the respondent No. 2 – opposite party No. 1 is the dealer of the said machine, appellant – opposite party No. 2 is the manufacturer of the said machine and respondent No. 3 – opposite party No. 3 is the service centre and the dealer of the said machine. It is also alleged in the complaint that the complainant after purchasing the said machine took the same to Uttarkashi for some work but the pump of the said machine was not properly functioning and some problem has accrued and the same was brought into the knowledge of the mechanic of service centre – opposite party No. 3 and the same was attended by the opposite party No. 3. After expiry of two days, the engine was seized and the same problem was intimated to the service centre – opposite party No. 3; on 23.04.2012 the opposite party No. 3 inspected the machine and took the pump and brought the same to Dehradun, which was fitted on 17.05.2012, but the same stopped functioning after two – three days and again the complaint was made and the same procedure was followed by the respondent No. 2 - opposite party No. 1, but the problem continued to occur. It is further alleged by the complainant in the complaint that the mechanic of the appellant – opposite party No. 2 inspected the compressor and told the complainant that the back compression and the piston was not functioning properly and there is some problem in the engine of the said compressor and further assured the complainant that the same will be changed by the appellant – opposite party No. 2. But despite of regular correspondence, the same was not changed and the complainant had to face losses and problems for which the appellant alongwith the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were responsible. In order to complete the contract, the complainant took the compressor on rent of Rs. 50,000/- per month alongwith JCB machine on rent of Rs. 2,45,000/- per month; the complainant had also incurred labour loss of Rs. 6,00,000/- due to the said problem; the complainant sent a legal notice to the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to change the compressor and to compensate the complainant, but all in vain. After sometime, the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 & 3 approached the complainant and discussed the problem and assured the complainant that the complaint of the machine will be attended and the complainant will also be compensated for the losses incurred due to non-functioning of the said machine. In su