Back
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION,ODISHA,CUTTACK
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 41 OF 2006
Prasanta Kumar Swain,
S/o -Late Banamali Swain,
Vill - Nabadia, Po/Ps - Kujanga,
Dist.-Jagatsinghpur
… Complainant
Vrs.
1.
Regional Manager,
J.C.B.India Ltd.,
Unit No. 689, Udayan Chat,
Rodon Street, Kolkata
2.
M/s Kalinga Automobiles (P) Ltd.,
Unit – I, Plot No.’B’,
Bhubaneswar, Dist - Khurda
3. Area Manager,
J.C.B.India Ltd.,
Nirmala Plaza, Forest Park,
Bhubaneswar, Dist - Khurda
4. G.M.(Service),
J.C.B.India Ltd.,
Mathura Road, Ballab Gorh, Haryana
5. SREI INFRASTYRUCTURE FINANCE LTD.,
A-162, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Dist – Khur4da
… Opp.Parties
____________
For the complainant : M/s B.K.Parida & Associates
For Opp.party Nos. 1,3 & 4 : M/s S.Dwivedi & Associates
For OP No. 2 : Mr G.R.Verma, Advocate
For Op No. 5: M/s D.R.Swain & Associates
_____________
P R E S E N T:
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE D.P.CHOUDHURY, PRESIDENT,
DR P.K.PRUSTY, MEMBER
AND
MISS S.L.PATTNAIK, MEMBER
DATED THE 01st NOVEMBER, 2022
O R D E R
DR. D.P. CHOUDHURY J., PRESIDENT
The captioned complaint case is filed u/s 17 of the Consumer
Protection Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act’ in short) by the complainant
against the opposite parties seeking direction to opposite parties 1 to 4
to supply new JCB 4D-Hydrautic Excavator failing which cost of the
machine, compensation and cost etc.
FACTS
2. The unshorn details of the case of the complainant is that
complainant has purchased a JCB Hydraulic Excavator from OP Nos. 1 to
4 on 13.1.2005 on payment of Rs.17,53,677/-. It has warranty for 12
months. On 22.4.2005, the complainant found defect in the machine and
accordingly informed OPs who deputed Servicing Engineer to check up
the machine. The Service Engineer repaired the machine but the machine
did not function well and the hydraulic system functions slowly.
Thereafter, the Service Engineer on 26.4.2005 again checked the machine
and found that the left side hydraulic oil is leaking and advised to give
slew seal kit which was not available in the market. However, later on, it
was procured and fitted with the machine. Thereafter, again the defect
accrued to the machine. On 28.5.2005, the Service Engineer of OP No.2
also was deputed and he found the strainer oil was leaking from both
sides due to damage in spool seals. The Service Engineer repaired the part
but the problem could not be rectified. On 8.6.2005, the complainant
found the hydraulic leaking and asked the OPs to repair the machine. In
July, 2005, again complainant requested to replace the hydraulic
excavator which was not functioning well due to manufacturing defect in
the hydraulic system and OPs assured to the complainant to co-operate
him and provide necessary advice. After rainy season on 2.3.2006, when
the machine started to work the hydraulic leakage was found and the
Service Engineer being deputed checked the machine and found that
after 20 minutes of working the hydraulic system was overheating. The
Service Engineer changed the necessary accessories for good running.
Thereafter, the OPs on 22.3.2006, 30.3.2006 and 5.4.2006 repaired the
hydraulic system but again the defect occurred. On 8.4.2006, the machine
was repaired by changing accessories. Accordingly, on 13.4.2006,
complainant informed the OPs but no action was taken. Then lawyer’s
notice was sent but no action was taken. So the complainant being
aggrieved filed the consumer complaint.
3. Per contra, OP Nos. 1, 3 and 4 filed written version refuting all th
