KAMALJEET SINGH SHEKHAWAT Vs. KOMATSU INDIA PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') challenges the order dtd. 11/8/2017 of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (in short, the 'State Commission') in Consumer Complaint no. 60 of 2014 dismissing the complaint filed by the respondent on the ground that the complainant was not a 'consumer' under the Act.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given thoughtful and careful consideration to the material on the record.

(3.) The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant had purchased a Poclain (L&T machine) also known as L&T Komatsu Hydraulic Excavator (in short, 'Excavator') on 29/6/2013 for Rs.59,11,000.00which started to breakdown with some mechanical problem or another soon after. The respondent attended to the mechanical faults on payment basis. According to the appellant, the excavator needed repairs on 2/8/2013, 22/10/2013, 17/12/2013, 11/1/2014, 31/1/2014, 5/3/2014, 1/4/2014, 8/4/2014, 10.4/2/14 and 21/4/2014 when various amounts were charged by the respondent from the appellant. The defects ranged from change of oil, filters and mechanical issues. All the repairs were admittedly paid for by the appellant. On 26/4/2014 the machine stopped functioning and the respondents diagnosed the defect to be with the hydraulic pump and swing motor for which an estimate of Rs.9,00,000.00 was prepared. On 15/5/2014 the appellants requested the respondents to return the hydraulic pump and swing motor and other parts which was not done. Thereafter, CC 60 of 2014 was filed with the State Commission alleging deficiency in service which was dismissed by the State Commission on contest on the ground that the appellant was not a 'consumer' under Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Act.