Date of filing:31.08.2019

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:12.09.2023

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 12^th Day of September 2023

PRESENT

Mr. K B SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mrs.M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER

APPEAL NO.1277/2019

M/s Case New Holland Construction

Equipment Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep by its Authorised Incharge,

Mr. Vishwanath Chikkon,

Having its Regd. Office at:

Plot No.157, Pitampur Industrial Estate,

Phase-3, Dist:Dhar,

Madhya Pradesh-452074.…….. Appellant

(By Mr.Rohit R Kukrega, Adv.)

-Versus-

1. Hanumaiah,

S/o Late Bommegowda,

Aged about 47 years,

R/a Madduru,

Malavalli Main Road,

Maddur Tq.,

Mandya Dist.

(By Mr.Chandrashekara K, Adv.)

2. Afro Asia Equipment Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep by its Manager,

Having its Office at:

No.2236, 15^th Cross,​

ORDER

BY Mr. K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: Pri. Dist. & Session Judge (R)- JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1. This is an appeal filed by OP1 in CC/272/2016 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandya, aggrieved by the order dated 25.07.2019. (The parties in this appeal will be referred to their rank assigned by the Forum below).

2. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard learned counsels.

3. OP1 is a manufacturer of construction equipment vehicles, sold an equipment called loader Backhoe to one Mr.Hanumaiah the complainant before the Forum below.  The said equipment was manufactured in the month of November 2015 was sold to him for Rs.23,86,000/- on 05.12.2015. The Complainant had paid Rs.4,36,000/- by way of cash and had paid Rs.19,50,000/- availing finance from Srei Equipment Finance Limited.  The said equipment was registered in the office of RTO as KA-11-8374.  The said equipment was purchased by complainant through OP2 which is the non exclusive dealer of OP1.  After purchase of the said equipment complainant went on complaining on complain   about the equipment engine being in bad condition, although there was repair works done and made equipment to a running proper condition.  The said equipment after continuous back to back complaints, was repaired through their engineer and had told complainant,   change of oil lead to the equipment being in good working condition without any defect.  However, complainant had issued a legal notice alleging rendering deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos.1 and 2 and had claimed seeking replacement of engine to the said equipment.  He has sought for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for having sold defective equipment and sought for Rs.1,00,000/- for the loss of earnings and Rs.50,000/- for the loss at the rate of Rs.5,000/- each from 07.11.0216 to 17.11.2016.  Further sought for Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and physical inconvenience and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation cost.