L&T CASE EQUIPMENT (P) LTD AND ORS Vs. SADA NAND CHAUHAN AND ANR
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
LAndT Case Equipment (P) Ltd And Ors
Sada Nand Chauhan And Anr
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) APPELLANTS have filed this appeal against the order, dated 23.4.2009, passed by District Forum, Sirmour at Nahan, in Consumer Complaint No.98/2003. While allowing the complaint, appellants and respondent No.2 were held jointly and severally liable to refund the sale consideration of Rs. 15,67,740 alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint, i.e. 7.8.2003 till full payment was made. All of them have also been burdened with litigation cost of Rs.3,000. Appellants have been further directed to comply with the said order within 45 days of the receipt of copy of the order.
(2.) APPELLANTS and respondent No.2 had filed a common reply and were also represented by he same counsel. Respondent No.2 is not aggrieved from the order of District Forum below. It has attained finality qua this respondent.
(3.) ADMITTED facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondent No.1 purchased a machine L and T Case Loader Backhoe from the appellants an the 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 appellants and respondent No.2. They did not rectify the defects nor replaced the machine with a new one. Further according to him, it was lying with them since 10.11.2007. Thus, appellants and respondent No.2 having indulged into unfair trade practice as well as having committed deficiency in service, complaint was filed.
When put to notice, as already noted, appellants and respondent No.2 filed a common reply and according to them, complaint was not maintainable, as also the respondent No.1 was not a consumer. Allegations of manufacturing defects by the respondent No.1 were denied because on verifying, it was found that machine was in working order. Complaint was false and frivolous filed with an aim to cause harassment to all of them.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.