AMIN EQUIPMENT PVT LTD Vs. BAVABHAI VELABHAI NASHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from order dated 20.3.2003 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot in Complaint No.97 of 2001 directing the opponents to repair the hydraulic oil pump in question and if the same is not repaired within the time prescribed by the learned Forum to pay back the consideration in the sum of Rs.29,095/- with interest @ 12% p. a. and also to pay cost quantified at Rs.350/-. When the present appeal was filed, the appellant was permitted to join the manufacturer as party respondent in view of the submission that the hydraulic pump in question was manufactured by JCB India Private Limited (originally Escorts JCB Limited ). It was also directed that the concerned technician of the manufacturer company should be permitted to examine the pump in question for the purpose of carrying out the repairs to the said pump. Notices were issued to the original complainant and the said manufacturing company.

(2.) The company has submitted inspection report dated 19.12.2003, concluding part whereof reads as under: "on the basis of the initial and technical observations and referring to part history, we have the conclusion that the said hydraulic pump which is offered for inspection is without identity, hence it is difficult to know the make, identification and other parameters being a reference due to which, we are in the doubt that whether the offered hydraulic pump is the same as issued/billed by us or not. At the time of purchase of this hydraulic pump, the customer was made aware that the hydraulic pump is a vital part and is recommended to be replaced by a skilled service engineer of the authorised dealer. Moreover, it was also advised that hydraulic pump replacement also needs flushing of old hydraulic oil from all the parts of the hydraulic system and refiling of company's recommended hydraulic oil and replacement of genuine hydraulic filter being mandatory but customer was more interested to save the cost of lubricants (oil) and consumables (hydraulic filter) and hence he had taken only hydraulic pump without adhering to the above said guidelines. The failure of hydraulic pump occurred due to carelessness made at the time of fitment of new pump and no proper care is taken as mentioned earlier. We recommended to have neat and clean hydraulic system and oil. Hence we recommend flushing of hydraulic system and remove old hydraulic oil by new genuine hydraulic oil because it remains in the form of metal particles and foreign materials move in the hydraulic system and enter in the hydraulic pump and get in between the pump body and gear as the hydraulic pump is gear pump and rotated as per the engine rpm and this remaining defects the suction body and generates clearing between the gear and body resulting in seepage of hydraulic oil due to which, the required flow is not achieved. Hence, once body is worn out, the pump is treated as failed and is not repairable. In this case, the failure of hydraulic pump is of the same nature as customer had not taken any care, due to which the metal particles and foreign material had circulated into the hydraulic system and it had got stuck in-between the gear and suction body of hydraulic pump. Due to body wearing, the clearance between the gear and the body had increased and the body is non-repairable and non-serviceable part. "

(3.) Now, before us, it has been submitted on behalf of the original opponents (appellants herein) as also the manufacturing company that the pump in respect of which the complainant made grievance was not the same pump as was sold and supplied by the opponents to the complainants. Reliance has been placed on the aforesaid report. In our considered opinion, this submission cannot be accepted inasmuch as this was never the defence of the opponents before the learned Forum. In fact, the pump was handed over for repairs by the complainants to the opponents pursuant to the order passed by this Commission. It is not the case of the opponents that the complainants had occasion to purchase more than one pump from the opponents or from other company. The complainants made grievances with regard to the defect in the pump within a very short time as can be seen from the particulars set out in the impugned order. It is part and parcel of the machine which was originally purchased from the opponents by the complainants. The value of the machine was exceeding Rs.17 lakhs. Under such circumstances there would not have been any reason for the complainant to have a different pump from the one which actually formed part of the machine in question. Therefore, the defence that the pump is different from the pump which was supplied along with the machine cannot be accepted. On the contrary, the condition of the pump would reflect defective nature thereof as has been held by the learned Forum. Under such circumstances, we do not find any discrepancy in the impugned order.