ORDER

For the Appellant                 Mr Yashraj Singh Deoa, Advocate

                                        Mr Abhishek Singh, Advocate

For the Respondent              Mr Umesh Nagpal, Advocate (R-1)

                                        NEMO for R-2

ORDER

PER SUBHASH CHANDRA

1.      This First Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) challenges the order dated 26.07.2017 of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (in short, the ‘State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No. 50 of 2011, wherein the State Commission allowed the Consumer Complaint filed by Respondent No. 1 herein and directed Respondent No. 1 and 2 to jointly and severally refund a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of initiation of litigation, i.e. 27.07.2011, on return of the earth digging machine by Respondent No. 1 herein, along with Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs.15,000/- towards cost of litigation. 

2.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully considered the material on the record.

3.     The Appellant’s case is that the Respondent no. 1 purchased an earth digging machine i.e. Escorts Backhoe Loader (Dig Max) (“Machine”) for an amount of Rs.19,44,000/-from Appellant no. 1 who is a manufacturer of various equipment including tractors, cranes and earth digging machines and is recognized as a leading manufacturer and supplier of heavy machinery, agricultural tractors etc. The purchase was vide invoice number JPR/10498, dated 20.01.2011 and a duly signed Sale Certificate. The said Machine was installed on site on 20.01.2011 at Village Bhanwanda, Tehsil Khimsar, District Nagaur, Rajasthan after of pre-delivery inspection to the satisfaction of Respondent no. 1. The appellants provided an Operations and Maintenance Manual to Respondent no. 1, with a checklist of things-to-do regularly after certain hours of operation for smooth functioning of the Machine. The Service Engineer at the spot also demonstrated to Respondent no. 1 steps to be taken for smooth functioning of the Machine after every few hours, as per the Operator's Manual.

4.      Respondent no. 1 commenced earth digging work on 21.01.2011, after which some leakage in hydraulic breather was noticed by Respondent no. 1. A service engineer was sent by the appellants on the same date to resolve the issue when it was noted that the Machine had already been working for 19 hours. According to the appellant as per the Operator's Manual, the machine was to be used with caution. However, negligent and over use of the machine by Respondent no. 1 had caused the said leakage in hydraulic breather. The Machine experienced leakage in the '0' ring of valve block hose pipe on 26.01.20211 by when the Machine had completed 63 hours in 5 days i.e. (an average of over 12 hours per day). However, the appellants replaced the older '0' ring with a new one.

5.      Similarly, the service engineer visited Respondent no. 1 on 30.01.2011 due to a hydraulic cap leakage, finding the Machine had been used for 96 hours. On 09.02.2011, a broken KPC bolt was replaced, by when the Machine had run for 206 hours since installation. In accordance with the Operator's Manual, periodic inspections of bolts are recommended due to expected wear and tear. Notwithstanding such wear, the bolts were replaced voluntarily in the interest of maintaining goodwill. On 17.02.2011, an adopter and breather were fixed, though it was likely Respondent no. 1's negligence caused the issue. On 16.03.2011, a breakdown was reported; a cracked dipper and bent boom cylinder were found, likely due to overloading by Respondent no. 1. Repairs were made on 25.03.2011. A wiring problem was fixed on 28.04.2011. On 10.05.2011, broken KPC bolts were reported attributed to Respondent no. 1's negligence. On 13.05.2011, another dipper was replaced. From 01.06.2011 to 11.06.2011, the Machine was idle due to a loader tilt cylinder problem, which