BEFORE THE RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CIRCUIT BENCH AT BIKANER COMPLAINT CASE NO: 03/2015 Mr. Sunder Pal S/o Omprakash, Caste– Meghwal, R/o 2 PM Jhulewala, Tehsil- Gharsana, District- Shri Ganganagar.

…Complainant Vs.

1. Pratap Tech Sales and Services Jhotwada Industries Area, Jaipur Through Manager.

2. Face New Holland Construction Equipment (India) Pvt. Ltd.

B-1-207, Bumiroj, Chandi Farm Road, Near Chandiwali Studio, Andheri (East), Mumbai

400072, Through Manager.

…Respondents BEFORE HON‟BLE MR. A.K. AGARWAL - MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON‟BLE MR. R.N. SARSWAT – MEMBER (NON-JUDICIAL)

Present:

For Complainant: Mr. Dilip Singh, Advocate For Respondent No. 1: None Present For Respondent No. 2: Mr. Anil Tanwar, Adv.

Dated: 24-09-2025

Judgement

Authored by: Hon’ble Mr. R. N. Sarswat – Member Complainant’s version Mr. Sunderpal (hereinafter referred to as the “Complainant”) purchased construction JCB machines from Pratap Tech Sales (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent No. 1”) in 2013. The machines were manufactured by Face/Case Holland (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent No. 2”) with the following details: Serial No. RO2731, Chassis No. R13AO2731, and Engine No. 4H3301/1220090. The Complainant paid Rs. 2,285,000 for the machine, establishing himself as a consumer of both Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2. This machine was essential for the Complainant's livelihood.

At the time of purchase, Respondent No. 1 highlighted the superior build quality and fuel efficiency (6 liters/hour) of the machine and provided a guarantee and warranty.

However, just 10 days after the purchase, the engine began to malfunction; it stopped working and overheated, and the fuel consumption exceeded the specified amount. The Complainant informed the Respondents, and their engineers inspected the machine. They confirmed the same issues: the machine was consuming more fuel than advertised. Despite multiple inspections and part replacements, there was no improvement in fuel efficiency. Respondent No. 1 informed the Complainant that the machine had a manufacturing defect and assured him that it would be replaced by the company. They suggested that the Complainant continue using the machine until a replacement could be provided, as it might improve over time.

As time passed, it became increasingly difficult for the Complainant to earn a living with the defective machine, while Respondent No. 1 continued to delay the replacement.

On May 13, 2014, the Complainant sent a legal notice to the Respondents, but they ignored his requests.

Complainant’s Prayer The Complainant filed a complaint with this commission on February 23, 2015, due to a defect in the product and the unsatisfactory response from the respondents. The Complainant is seeking the following relief:

1. Replacement of the defective machine with a new one, or a payment of Rs. 2,285,000, which is the price of the machine, plus interest.

2. Payment of the bank EMIs along with the applicable interest.

3. Compensation of Rs. 200,000 for economic loss and Rs.

50,000 for mental anguish.

4. Reimbursement of Rs. 20,000 for litigation expenses.

5. Any other relief that the Commission may deem appropriate.

Documents produced by the Complainant The Complainant annexed the copies of the VAT invoice for the machine dated 28 May 2013, the Inspection Report for the machine, and the Legal Notice dated 13.05.2014.

However, the Complainant did not present any witnesses or further documentary evidence to support the claims made in the complaint.

Respondents’ version In response to the notice, the Respondent No. 2 provided a detailed reply but did not produce any document or any evidence.They defended their version on following grounds among others:

1. The Complainant has alleged defect in the engine of the equipment but has not impleaded manufacturer of the engine as party to the proceeding.

2. The warranty for the equipment was provided under specific conditions outlined in the warranty clause, which becomes void if