Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/596

SAJEEV KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S JCB INDIA LTD - Opp.Party(s)

JAGAN MATHEW

20 Nov 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHAR LANE, VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO. 596/14

JUDGMENT DTD: 20/11/15

(Against the order in CC No.69/13 on the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta, dtd:15/10/14)

PRESENT

SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS     :  MEMBER

 

APPELLANT

 

          Sajeev Kumar,

          Plavila House, Pulimoodu,

          Kulappada. P.O., Pin – 695542

          Presently residing at

 Near M.D.L.P. School,

Kumbazha – 689653

 

(By Adv. Sri. Jagan Mathew)

 

                                                          Vs.

 

RESPONDENTS

 

1. M/s. JCB India Ltd.,

          23/7 Mathura Road, Ballabgarh,

          Faridabad, Haryana – 121004

 

2. M/s. India Techs Ltd.,

          PB No. 2401, 39/4006,

          Kochudayamchira,

          Kelmer’s Complex,

          Ravipuram Road,

          Kochi – 682016

 

3. The Manager,

          M/s. India Techs Ltd.,

          Maria Arcade, Kumbazha P.O.,

          Pathanamthitta – 689653

 

          (By Adv. Sri. Dinesh Sajan for R1 &

            Adv. Sri. Rajmohan. P for R2 & 3)

 

JUDGMENT

 

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS: MEMBER

          This appeal is preferred against order passed in CC No.69/2013 by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta on 15/10/2014.

          2.      Appellant purchased a JCB Excavator bearing chassis no.1737201, engine no.H00001953 from 2^nd respondent and manufactured by the 1^st respondent for his livelihood on 21/06/2011.  The JCB after the expiry of warranty period, developed complaint by breaking theVerbu Ripp Bolt on 06/10/2012 and was given for repair to the 3^rd respondent.  The complaint was resolved and the appellant incurred an expense of Rs.5,582/- towards spare parts and Rs.2,800/- as cost of work.  Later on 18/01/2013 the JCB Excavator faced with the same trouble but on the other side of the machine and appellant had to spend Rs.14,569/- towards spare parts and Rs.2,000/- as labour cost.

          3.      Later on 15/02/2013 the trouble repeated on the same side as of the first repair was done and had to spend Rs.21,723/- towards spare parts and Rs.2,300/- for labour cost.  On 13/03/2013 again had trouble where the repair was conducted the second time and appellant had to spend Rs.32,238/- towards spare parts and Rs.1,800/- for labour.  Thus in total appellant had to spend Rs.74,112/- for spare parts, Rs.8,900/- as other expense all in addition to annual maintenance charge of Rs.13,500/- whereby a total amount ofRs.96,512/- was paid by the appellant.  The appellant argues that the repeated trouble occurred for the machine was due to manufacturing defect and lack of expertise while doing work.  The appellant had other cost incurred due to the frequent trouble the machine had and total of Rs.1,36,612/- was claimed and approached the Learned Forum below.  Respondents argue that appellant does not come under the consumer protection act as the purchase of JCB was for commercial purpose and not livelihood. The warranty for the machine was for a period of 12 months from the date of installation and the machine started having complaints only after an expiry of warranty period.  The machine started complaints after using for 2956 hours and hence it is evident that there was no manufacturing defect.  On report of the complaint respondents had advised the appellant to change the axle arm along with other necessary parts but it was declined by the appellant.  Damage can be caused due to negligent use and operational abuse of the machine.  Excessive use of single side breaks may cause such problems as alleged.  It is alleged that the appellant in spite of the advice from the respondent had given the axle for repairing unauthorised agency.  Hence prayed for dismissal.

          4.      In the Learned forum below an expert commission was appointed and based on his findings and evidence, which stated that the damage caused to the JCB is due to broken parts of Virbus Ripp Bolt like gear planet, annular carrier etc.   The breakage of bolt may cause due to the thread hole becoming over size in the axle arm or due to excessive use of one side breaking of the equipment or due to the ovality in the carrier planetary hub.  In additional report C2 commission clearly stated that “there is no material defect or manufacturing defect for the cause of breakage of the bolts…on my detailed inspection no material or manufacturing defect seen on any part of the equipment…..so the incident is due to the excessive load exerted by the driver on the equipment”.  Further the person appointed as commission stated when he was conducting the inspection the machine was in working condition, hence based on the view expressed by the commission and on his report the Learned Forum below dismissed the appellant’s complaint.

          5.      Hence this appeal.

          Having heard submissions made by the Learned Advocate for the appellants and the respondent in person and on perusal of record it is evident that the appellant started having complaints with JCB excavator after a year and a usage of the machine for 2956.5 hrs.  Thereby repeatedly the complaints alleged by the appellant had been occurring relating to the same trouble on either sides of the JCB.  Appellants allege that the JCB has got the inherent manufacturing defect but no authentic documents like expert opinion has been filed to that effect and from files the expert commission report completely stands against the allegations raised by the appellants. However, it appears from the record and course of hearing it is evident that the respondent has been using the said vehicle for all these periods and from the commission report it shows the machine have completed 5901 hrs.

          6.      In view of that, we are of opinion that the Ld. District Forum is justified in passing the order dismissing the complaint.  Evidently, the appellant took the machine to the dealer for removal of defects on several occasions and it seems the defect was rectified each time and respondents also advised the appellant change the axle arm along with other necessary parts, to which the appellant declined. There is no evidence adduced to challenge the report submitted by the commission appointed in the Learned Forum below and hence as to the claim there was manufacturing defect could not be proved. But at the same time the alleged manufacturing defect has not been proved by any other expert evidence or necessary documents are submitted by the appellants.

          Therefore the submission made on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted.  Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS:   MEMBER

 

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR:   JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

nb

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

 CONSUMER DISPUTES

 REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHAR LANE, VAZHUTHACADU,

 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

APPEAL NO. 596/14

JUDGMENT DTD: 20/11/15

 

 

nb