DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK : (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No. 29 of 2022.
Date of hearing : 22.08.2023.
Date of order : 14.11.2023.
Dated the 14th day of November 2023.
Rabindra Mana, S/o:-Haripada Mana,
At:-Kantia Mangalpur, P.S:- Tihidi, Dist:- Bhadrak.
Odisha, Pin - 756130.
Managing Director, Kalinga Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., (Authorized Dealer - JCB India Ltd.)
Corporate Office :- Plot-B, Unit-1, Rajpath,
Help Line No.-0674-2587332, Mob.No.-9692205000.
Business Office Address :-
Plot No.-6C/6D, Sector-A, Zone-B,
Sr. Manager/Authorized Officer,
Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd.
Cuttack, Sreemaa Construction, 3rd Floor,
NayaChowk, Link Road, Madhu Patna Colony,
- Managing Director, JCB India Ltd.,
B-1/1-1, 2nd Floor, Mohon Co-operative Industrial
Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi DL-110044 IN
P R E S E N T S.
1. Sri Shiba Prasad Mohanty, President,
2. Smt. Madhusmita Swain, Member.
Counsels appeared for the parties.
For the Complainant :Sri Radhakanta Mohapatra, Advocate & Associate.
For the O.P. No.1 : Sri Rajesh Ku. Mahapatra, Advocate& Associate,
For the O.P. No. 2 : Sri Debasis Nayak, Advocate,
For the O.P. No.3 : Sri Ananda Sankar Das, Advocate.
J U D G M E N T.
SRI SHIBA PRASAD MOHANTY, PRESIDENT.
The Complainant alleges unfair trade practice and deficiency of service against the O.P and prayed for compensation for mental agony suffered due to the misdeeds of O.Ps.
The Case of the Complainant is that he had purchased one JCB Loader Model JCB 3DX PLUS ECO EXPERT back hold loader on 28.09.2021 for self-employment purpose. The said loader was purchased with financial assistance from O.P.No.2 and the Complainant was paying the installments. The Complainant alleges that after registration of the vehicle at local R.T.O. when the vehicle was taken for work. On the very day the engine started to give problems. The Complainant registered a complaint before O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.1 removed the defect but thereafter after some days use the same problem reoccurred. The Complainant alleges that, there is an inherent manufacturing defect for which O.P.No.1 is not able to rectify the defect permanently and that as the loader is under warranty the O.P should replace the defective loader with a new one. The Complainant has filed the registration certificate, GST INVOICE, Insurance etc.
O.P.No.2 was set ex -parte O.P.No.1 & 3 has filed their written version.
O.P.No.1 denies the allegation leveled against them and further states that complainant has lodged his first complain on 22.12.2021 complaining there in that “Accelerator not working”. It was upon inspection found that the wire has been cut by a mouse and after the accelerator was replaced the problem was solved. The second time complainant complained at 14.01.22 complaining therein that “ Hydraulic Oil leakage from loader valve block” and it was observed by technician of O.P.No.1 that offspring sensor adaptor was broken due to external hit and after replacement of new adaptor under warranty the problem was sorted. Similarly the complainant has complained on 21.02.2022 for minor problems which was sorted out by technician of O.P.No.1. Similarly on 10.03.2022 and 17.03.2022 the technician addressed to the problem reaching at the spot and till the date of filing of the written version the machine has run 1136/ hour meter. O.P.No.1 has also filed service record and service visit record as Annexure –R-1 Series. O.P.No.1 further states that the complainant has never alleged about the engine defect nor did he ever asked for replacement of machine and that machine does not suffer of any manufacturing defect. Case of the O.P.No.3 is that they deny of having any manufacturing defect of the said machine and that they are liable as manufacturer extends only up to repair and replacement and not for any consequential or other loss or damage. The dealer of the O.p.No.3 has reserved all complains reaching on the site, spare parts, like accelerator wire, upstream sensor adaptor, fuel filler, one injectors free of cost under the warranty. Further the plaint of the complainant lacks of any specific averment about any manufacturing defect. O.P.No.3 also raises the question of the maintainability by stating that the complainant has purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose and is not a consumer within the principles of Sec (7) of the consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Hearing the rival contentions and material available on record the commission thinks it proper to frame the following issues to adjudicate the dispute.
- Whether the purchase of the complainant is for commercial purpose?
- Whether there was any inherent manufacturing defect in the loader?
- Whether these O.Ps have committed any unfair trade practice and found to be deficient in providing service?
- To what relief the complainant is entitled to?
The complainant has purchased the case JCB Loader for self-employment purpose by taking financial assistance from OP No.2. Commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self-employment. So, the Complainant is a consumer as per the explanations of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Issue No.1 is thus is answered in negative and in favour of the complainant.
There is no material in record to say that the complainant has ever alleged about any manufacturing defect of the JCB Loader to any authority. As it appears from the complaint report and service record of the case JCB Loader, it is found that on 5 occasions from 22/12/2021 to 17/03/2022, this complainant has complained about Malfunctioning of Accelerator, Hydraulic Leakage from LVB and about starting problem. He had never complained about engine problem. But in the complaint petition, the complainant states that “on the very day certain defects were noticed in the Engine”. The complainant even failed to mention the dates when he has lodged complaints before the OP No.1 about malfunctioning of the engine or other parts of the case vehicle. There is no iota of evidence about any manufacturing defect. There is no opinion of any expert of that field to corroborate the claims of the complainant that the case JCB Loader has inherent manufacturing defects. In absence of all these above discussed evidence this commission is unable to persuade itself to accept the claim of the complainant that there is inherent manufacturing defect in the case JCB Loader. Thus Issue No.2 is answered in negative and against the Complainant.
OP No.1, as and when received any complain from the complainant has provided service at the spot with promptitude. Even they have replaced ‘Upstream Sensor Adopter’ even if the same was not coming under their warranty policy. The complainant was not attending to regular service schedule of the vehicle even after receiving written reminder from the OPs sent by registered post. The case JCB Loader has clocked 1114 HMR of operations which abundantly clearly suggests that the case JCB Loader is running satisfactorily. Just generic allegations without any substance or material cannot stand on its legs. So, this commission does not find any force behind the contention that OP No.1 & 3 were deficient in providing service to the Complainant. OP No.2 is the financer. There is no specific claim or allegations made in the complaint petition by the complainant. None of these OPs were found to be deficient in providing service or engaged in unfair trade practice. Thus Issue No.3 is answered in negative and against the complainant.
As the complainant has failed to bring home the charges leveled against these OPs, he is not entitled to get any relief.
O R D E R.
In the result, the complaint be & same is dismissed. No order of cost.
This order is pronounced in the open Court on this the 14th day of November 2023 under my hand and seal of the Commission.