CASE NEW HOLLAND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. Vs. SADA NAND CHAUHAN AND OTHER R/O. MOHALLA GOBNDGARH OF RELIANCE CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES, VILLAGE AKALGARH, TEHSIL PAONTA SAHIB SIRMOR HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 04.05.2010 passed by the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 241/2009 - L and T Case Equipment (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. Sh. Sada Nand Chauhan and Anr . by which, appeal was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent no. 1 purchased a machine L and T Case Loader Backhoe from the OP No.1 to OP No. 3/petitioner and the OP No. 4/Respondent No. 2. This was delivered by the respondent no. 2 to the respondent No. 1 at Nahan. Further, case of the Respondent no. 1 was that he had purchased the machine for his personal use being an agriculturist as he owns land in Tehsil Nahan. It could not be put to effective use because of many manufacturing defects having occurred during warranty period. These were brought to the notice of the petitioner and respondent no. 2. They did not rectify the defects nor replaced the machine with a new one. It was lying with them since 10.11.2007. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OPs resisted complaint, filed common reply and pleaded that complaint was not maintainable as complainant purchased machine/equipment for commercial purposes, as this machine is not used by the farmers for agriculture purposes, but it is used for earthmoving, construction of bridges, flyovers, breaking/cutting mountains, etc. Manufacturing defects in the machinery were also denied and it was further pleaded that on verifying machine, it was found in working order and complaint has been filed to harass OPs. Denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum vide order dated 23.4.2009 dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by complainant was allowed by learned State Commission vide order dated 22.8.2006 and matter was remanded back to learned District Forum. None appeared for OPs before District Forum and learned District Forum after hearing complainant allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs. 15,67,640/- with 9% p.a. interest along with Rs. 3,000/- as cost of litigation. Appeal filed by OP No. 1, 2 and 3 was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) None appeared for Respondent No. 2 and he was proceeded ex-parte.