Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 536.
Instituted on : 12.09.2017.
Decided on : 07.12.2021.
Sangeeta age 29 years wife of Sh. Jagdish Sharma resident of H.No.84 near Satsang Bhawan, VPO Sankhol Tehsil Bahadurgarh District Jhajjar.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- JCB India Ltd., 23/7 Mathura Road, Ballabgarh through its Incharge/Manager.
- Mohan Earthmovers a Unit of Mohan Tractors(P) Ltd., Delhi Road, Gandhra Mor, Rohtak through its Proprietor/Incharge.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Ashutosh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. R.K. Sapra Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Sh.Mukesh Parmar Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased a JCB 3DX- Xtra-HDT machine No.1495692 from the opposite party No.2 vide invoice no.2104 dated 24.05.2016 and warranty of one year was given. The respondent no.1 is the manufacturer of alleged machine. In the month of March 2017, there were some defects in the machine i.e. Collar of loader, room cracking brocket, colour defective of bonnet, battery problem, jack seal leakage, window lock problem, central pin front excel etc. Complainant made oral and written requests immediately and on 03.04.2017 the respondents sent a team. The members of the team checked the machine at the spot and found many defects in the machine. They assured to remove the defects but till today the defects have not been removed. The complainant has been continuously requesting the respondents to remove the defects but all the times, the respondents avoided to do the needful on one pretext or the other. Due to the aforesaid defects and problems, the complainant is facing hardship because she is unable to ply the JCB machine and accordingly suffering financial loss also. It was assured by the respondents that the machine would work properly for minimum 2000 hours in one year but it had not worked upto the above said hours due to the above said defects. Now the respondents have about a week ago finally refused to do the needful. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to remove the aforesaid manufacturing defects or to replace the parts with new ones and to pay an amount of Rs.200000/- on account of deficiency in service, mental agony, financial loss and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that complainant has purchased the JCB machine for commercial purpose and she is utilizing the same for commercial purpose, as such she is not the consumer of opposite parties. According to the record, in the month of March 2017, the complainant made the complaint regarding collar of loader, fender and bonnet paint, jack seal and window lock failure. No complaint regarding central pin, front axel, battery, roof cracking was made as is now being alleged by the complainant. On the complaint made by the complainant both side fender and catch lock were replaced which were under warranty as mentioned in service visit report NNo.23548 dated 27.04.2017. The problem of collar loader failure was there due to poor maintenance of machine by the operator. Moreover, pin bush are consumable items are not covered under warranty as mentioned in the warranty policy. The complainant when made the complaint about the deeper, slue and bucket ram seal, the same were also attended. However, seals were not replaced due to rod scratch on account of failure of maintaining the said JCB machine properly which is also not covered in warranty as mentioned in report no.22967 dated 15.06.2017. There is no manufacturing defect in the machine as alleged. Whatever, problems have been asserted by the complainant, the same has been duly attended and the fault has been removed as per the warranty, the conditions of which were duly accepted to the complainant at the time of purchasing the said JCB machine. It is also submitted here that the complainant is not getting the facility of free service on time and she has refused to avail the facility of forth and fifth free service on time and she has refused to avail the same as per JCB service schedule. There is no fault on the part of opposite parties and it is the complainant who is at fault and is not properly maintaining the machine as per the guidelines and the instructions issued to her at the time of purchasing the machine and further she has failed to brought the machine to the workshop to avail the free service of JCB machine. The registered letter has been sent to the complainant in this regard on 06.02.2017 which has been sent through registered post on 15.02.2017. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties rather all the facts detailed above goes to show that all the problems i.e. normal wear and tear have been duly attended by the opposite parties and the fault has been removed to the satisfaction of the complainant. Since there is no defect in the machine and all the complaints made by the complainant have been attended to by the opposite parties on the warranty basis. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has also submitted the same facts as mentioned by the opposite party in its reply and has prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 and closed his evidence on dated 13.12.2018. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.RW1/B and closed his evidence on dated 25.03.2019 but respondent no.1 has also tendered some other documents which have been mentioned as Ex.R1 to Ex.R8. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.2 made a statement that evidence already placed on record by the OP no.1 be also read on behalf of opposite party No.2 and has closed the evidence on 21.05.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, the complainant has placed on record only a copy of bill Ex.C1. No job sheet has been placed on record to prove that there is manufacturing defect or the service was not done at time. On the other hand opposite parties have placed on record copy of letters Ex. R3, Ex.R5 & Ex.R7 to prove that these letters were sent to the complainant to avail the free services of her machine on time. But the complainant failed to place on record any document to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in machine in question or the service facility was not provided by the opposite parties. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
6. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
07.12.2021.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
……………………………………….
Tripti Pannu, Member
