D.VENKATA SUBBAIAH KADAPA DISTRICT Vs. GOLD FIELDS CHINNACHOWK PANTHEIST OFFICE MADRAS ROAD, KADAPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complaint is filed seeking direction to the opposite parties no.1 to 3 to replace the JCB Proclainer or in the alternative to refund the amount of Rs.29,59,000/- together with interest @ 24% per annum and Rs.5 lakhs towards mental agony as also a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards costs.

(2.) The averments of the complaint are that the complainant on 3.5.2007 purchased JCB Proclainer machine from the opposite party no.2 under hire purchase agreement from M/s Sree Infrastructure Finance Limited Nellore. The complainant has paid margin money o 20% of the cost of proclainer and taken the finance for 80% of the cost. The cost of the proclainer is Rs.20,59,000/-. The proclainer was manufactured by the opposite party no.3. The opposite party no.2 delivered the proclainer to the complainant along with initial certificate of fitness on 20.4.2007 and provided a warranty for a period of 12 months or for 2000 hours whichever occurs earlier after the date of the sale or installation. The vehicle was also provided with six free services by the opposite party no.3. Within a short period of purchase of the proclainer, the complainant noticed that the proclainer has developed problems of malfunctioning such as leaking of the oil, noise in the gear box etc., while it was being used for contract works provided by private under the government institution as well.

(3.) The complainant had taken the proclainer for several times for repair to the opposite parties. The opposite parties have not satisfactorily attended to the rectification of the problems. On 10.4.2008, the service engineer of the opposite parties had found inherent defects in the vehicle such as loader arm tower collar got crack, dipper collar got crack, chassis got crack at EVB located area, transmission of oil leaking from output shaft seal, tipping lever got crack, hydraulic tank got crack, boom swing automatically dropping, hub cracker, boom cracker, bucket levers operation problem and tyres of the machine were also giving trouble. The vehicle was malfunctioning. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 paid deaf ear to the request of the complainant in spite of the same being made within the warranty period. Therefore, the complainant had sustained heavy loss.