ORDER

PER SUBHASH CHANDRA

        This Appeal under Section 19 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Appellants (Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in the original Complaint) against the order dated 21.02.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaint No.53 of 2014 filed by the Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as “the Complainant”).  The State Commission directed the refund of ₹19,50,000/- along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of purchase of earth digging machine, i.e., Escorts Digmax Backhoe Loader (JCB Machine) manufactured by the Appellant, along with compensation of ₹2,00,000/- and ₹20,000/- as litigation expenses to the Complainant.  The Appellant is before this Commission with the following prayers:

2.     The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the Complainant had purchased an earth digging machine, namely Escorts Digmax Backhoe Loader (JCB Machine) manufactured by the Appellant for ₹19,50,000/- on 21.03.2023. The machine was delivered and installed on 24.03.2013 after the necessary pre-delivery inspection and certification.  The first free service was provided on 09.04.2013 when the machine was found to be working properly.  However, certain operational issues were pointed out by the Appellant subsequently which were attended to by the Complainant.  The second and third free services were also done when the machine was found to be fit for operations.  However, the Complainant approached the State Commission alleging that the machine was inherently defective since it had been brought to the Appellant over ten times for attending to some problem or the other.  It was stated that the machine had to be repaired on 23.04.2013 for failure of pressure in hydraulic system, on 30.04.2013 for a control valve system by replacing the big part, i.e. “O”, on 17.05.2013 for the arm cylinder tube leakage, on 18.05.2013 for repair of diesel pump requiring replacement of some parts, on 27.05.2013 for loader hose leakage, on 03.06.2013 for headlights and brake problems, on 25.06.2013 for swing cylinder pipe to be replaced, on 04.09.2013 for the non-working of the fuel pump which was repaired at the authorised service centre at Patiala, on 12.11.2013 for repair of hydraulic system, on 21.11.2013 for drop in the RPM of the engine and leakage in the boom cylinder HP hose, on 18.01.2014 for broken throttle cable, etc.  

3.     Upon contest, the State Commission held that the Appellant had been deficient in service and that the vehicle/machine suffered from several defects and therefore, ordered the refund of the price of the same.  This order is impugned before us by the Appellant on the ground that the State Commission erred in its finding that the machine suffered from inherent manufacturing defects which had not been established as per the procedure prescribed under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act and that the conclusion arrived at by the State Commission was based on conjecture and surmise.  It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

4.     Respondent No.2 was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 23.01.2023.  We have heard the learned Counsel for the contesting parties and perused the documents on record carefully.

5.     The case of the Complainant before the State Commission was that the vehicle/machine had to be sent on over ten occasions to the authorized workshop of the Appellant or to the Bosch Service Centre but despite repeated complaints of the Complainant, covering various mechanical, hydraulic and engine related complaints, the Appellant could not rectify the defects.  Therefore, he had been left with no alternative but to approach the State Commission which had correctly upheld the Complaint.

6.     On the other hand, the Appellant contended that the finding that the vehicle/machine had been held to be defective by the State Commission and therefore, the Appellant held to be deficient in service on