First Appeal No. 383 of 2010. Case: Venus Auto Traders and Ors. Vs Gulfam. Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | First Appeal No. 383 of 2010 |
| Counsel | For Respondents: M.M. Lamba, Advocate |
| Judges | B.C. Kandpal, J. (President), D.K. Tyagi and Veena Sharma, Members |
| Issue | Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 |
| Citation | III (2015) CPJ 89 (Uttar.) |
| Judgement Date | May 25, 2015 |
| Court | Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
B.C. Kandpal, J. (President)
-
This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 18.10.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 18 of 2010. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant-opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to give new machine to the respondent - complainant after taking back the machine in question and also to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000 to the respondent - complainant, within a period of one month from the date of the order. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant had purchased an earthmoving equipment/machine from the opposite party No. 1 - Venus Auto Traders for sum of Rs. 17,00,000 approximately. The said machine was hypothecated with the opposite party No. 3 - Magma Fincorp Limited, who has not been impleaded as party in the present appeal by the appellants. The said machine was manufactured by the opposite party No. 2 - L & T - Case Equipment Private Limited. The complainant started use of the said machine after deploying a driver and two workers. It was alleged that after a period of one month, the said machine stopped working on account of technical defects in the same, complaint whereof was lodged with the opposite party No. 1, who sent its Service Engineer. The Service Engineer inspected the machine, but did not remove the defects. It was also alleged that the said machine is lying idle, on account of which, the complainant is suffering heavy loss. It was further alleged that the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 neither removed the defects from the machine, nor replaced the machine with a new one. Thereafter, alleging deficiency in service, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.
-
The appellant No. 1 filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the machine in question is being used by the complainant for commercial purpose; that on account of improper use of the machine and for want of required greasing, complaint was received on 1.7.2009 with regard to breakage of rod of boom cylinder of the machine; that the rod was replaced by the appellant No. 1 on 4.7.2009 free of charge that thereafter the bucket cylinder of the vehicle got damaged in the beginning of September, 2009 due to overheating and accident, which was replaced free of charge and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. The appellant No. 2 did not appear before the District Forum inspite of service of notice and, as such...
To continue reading
Request your trial