JCB INDIA LTD Vs. CHANDAN TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NO one has appeared for the complainant even on the second call. We, therefore, proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) THE complainant/respondent purchased a JCB machine from the petitioner Rajesh Motors Pvt. Ltd. on 23 -10 -2001 for a consideration of Rs.15,91,346/ -. The machine was manufactured by the petitioner in R.P.No.4044 of 2009, namely JCB India Ltd. The machine carried a warranty of twelve months/2000 hours. On the complaint made by the respondent No.1 the machine was checked by the seller on 03 -12 -2001 and repaired between 07 -12 -2001 to 10 -12 -2001. It was found during checking that the engine of the machine has seized due to leakage of water from the auxiliary water tank of the machine. It was also found that due to excessive heat of the engine the alarm fitted in the machine should have beeped but it did not beep because the complainant had replaced the cap fitted on the auxiliary water tank by a non -standard cap which was not of the prescribed standard and as a result of which the water leaked and led to the seizure of the engine. Re -winding of the engine was also undertaken by the seller for which a sum of Rs.3,190/ - was charged from the complainant. Alleging manufacturing defects in the machine the complainant approached the concerned District Forum seeking either replacement of the machine or refund of the price of the machine along with suitable compensation.

(3.) THE complaint was resisted by the petitioners on the ground that there was no manufacturing defect in the machine. It was also pointed out in the reply that as per the warranty conditions the complainant was entitled only to repair or replacement of the damaged components and not to the replacement of the machine. It was further stated in the reply that no manufacturing defect in the machine was found at the time it was checked at the authorized service centre. The petitioners pointed out, in their reply, that at the time of delivery of the machine 13 PSI cap was fitted on its engine but the complainant later replaced the said cap by a 7 PSI cap, of his own. It was also pointed out in the reply that as per clause 1.41 of the warranty, the complainant was not entitled to any compensation for not being able to use the machine during the period it was under repairs. The petitioners/opposite parties also stated in the reply that the complainant had committed breach of clause 1.61 of the warranty by getting the machine serviced from workshops other than authorized service centres. The petitioners/opposite parties also took a preliminary objection that since the machine was purchased for a commercial purpose the complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The District Forum, after considering the case of the parties inter alia held as under: