ORDER

1.      The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the Order dated 11.05.2018 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the State Commission”), in Consumer Complaint No. 71 of 2012, wherein the Complaint filed by the Complainant (Respondent No. 1 herein) was allowed.

2.      For Convenience, the parties in the Appeal are being referred to as mentioned in the Complaint before the State Commission. “Ram Singh” is referred to as the Complainant. While M/s. Krishna Automobile is referred as the OP-1, JCB India Ltd., Head Quarter and Branch Office is referred to as OP-2 and OP-3 respectively.

3.      During the pendency of the case before the learned State Commission, the Complainant filed MA No. 218/2013 seeking an amendment to the complaint. The learned State Commission allowed this amendment vide order dated 01.04.2013. Aggrieved by the said order, OP-2 filed Revision Petition No. 2604 of 2013 before this Commission. This petition was disposed of vide order dated 09.01.2018, which upheld the amendment of the complaint and granted OP-2 the opportunity to file an amended reply to the same.

4.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that on 13.02.2012 he purchased a JCB machine, Model/Chassis No. 1817428, Engine No. H000021382, from OP-1 for his livelihood and paid a total consideration of Rs. 20,74,999.62. OP-1 provided a one-year guarantee for the JCB machine, promising to replace any defective parts within that period. On 16.02.2012, Anuj Kumar, a service engineer from OP-1, inspected the JCB machine at the Complainant's premises. He found that the rims of the left and right-side tires were bent, and gearbox was making noise. He informed the Complainant that he would consult with OP-1 and then proceeded to repair/replace the defective parts. On 28/29 April 2012, the Complainant visited OP-3 to report the ongoing issues with the JCB. Gurdev Singh, a service engineer from OP-3, also confirmed that the rims of the left and right-side tyres were bent and that the gearbox was noisy. Necessary spare parts were not readily available and that the machine would be repaired once the parts are received. On 12.06.2012, Ganesh Kumar, a service engineer visited his premises and reiterated the defects and documented in Service Visit Report No. 59128 dated 12.06.2012 and asked him to bring the machine to Sangrur for repairs. The Complainant had also written a letter to Ganesh Kumar in this regard. On 16.06.2012, he took the machine to OP-3, where service engineers Ganesh Kumar, Gurdev Singh and Anuj Kumar replaced some parts. However, the machine still did not function properly. He returned the machine to OP-3 for further repairs. The OP-3 service engineer on inspection discovered a manufacturing defect: there was no needle bearing in the gearbox, which was not curable. He requested OP-3 to replace the machine with a new one since it was still within the guarantee period, but this request was denied for various reasons. Due to defective machine and the failure to fully repair within the guarantee period, he suffered mental agony, harassment, and financial loss, which he attributed to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by OPs. Being aggrieved, he filed Consumer Complaint No. 71 of 2012 before the State Commission against the OPs, seeking replacement of defective JCB machine with a new one of same make and model, compensation of Rs.6,00,000 for mental agony and harassment, and Rs.11,000 for litigation expenses.

5.      Upon notice, OP-1 & 2 filed their individual responses to the complaint before the learned State Commission. However, OP-3 did not file a reply to the amended complaint. Previously, a joint reply was submitted on behalf of OP-1 and OP-3.

6.      In reply, OP-1 contended that the complaint be dismissed against it as it is neither the