ACTION CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LTD vs GEEGRAJ SINGH & ANR

Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 present. None is present for respondent No. 2. Arguments heard.

Shri Geegraj Singh, the complainant, purchased JCB Machine from the respondents against Rs.17 lakh. The complainant paid the margin money in the sum of Rs.4,25,000/- only. Rest of the amount was paid by M/s Magma Finance Co. Ltd. The machine was having defects as detailed in the orders passed by fora below. It was sent for repair during the warranty period but the defects could not be rectified. The machine is still lying with the Action Construction Equipment Limited, petitioner/opposite party.

Alleging deficiency in service, a complaint has been filed before the District Forum, Seekar. The District Forum, Seekar, directed that a sum of Rs. 17 lakh be paid to the complainant alongwith compensation of Rs.20,000/- and costs of litigation of Rs.5,000/-. The State Commission dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order rendered by District Forum and imposed costs of Rs.20,000/-. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in this revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that this machine was obtained for commercial purpose. It has come on record that the complainant was having three other such like machines. The complaint itself mentions that the machine sold by the petitioner/opposite party remained often defective and closed during the warranty period also. The complainant could not use and utilize it properly. Consequently, the complainant had to bear the expenses of the operating driver of the machine i.e. salary in the sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month, and several acute physical and mental losses. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it shows that the complainant must be having four drivers for the machines and the machine in question was purchased for commercial purpose.

We see no merit in these arguments. Both the fora below came to the conclusion that the machine was used for personal benefit of the complainant. Merely having 2-3 machines and keeping 2-3 drivers does not make it a machine for commercial purpose. To run a business, lots of persons are required. Consequently, argument deserves no consideration.

The second submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the complainant/respondent had paid a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- only. The rest of the money was paid by the financier as per the agreement entered into between the parties. Para 9 of the agreement runs as follows: :Buyback Limited to Backhoe Loaders and Wheel Loader Product Range:

In the event of default (as defined in the loan agreement) by the customer leading to subsequent repossession of the vehicle by financier or any of the its authorized channels engaged by the bank for the purpose, seller agrees to buyback all such equipment at value equal to principal outstanding

(POS) as existing in the books of financier on the day of default. The offer however shall be applicable and limited to repossession reported during the first 18 months from the date of DO issued irrespective of the loan tenure offered to the customer. The seller agrees to compensate financier for the losses arising out of defaults as per the below options:____"

The machine is already with the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 is not to make repayment of loan to M/s Magma Finance Co. Ltd.

Consequently, we hereby modify the orders passed by fora below and reduced the amount from Rs. 17 lakh to Rs.4,25,000/-. The petitioner will pay the compensation and costs of litigation as ordered by the State Commission. We also direct that interest @ 6% per annum, be paid to the complainant from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization. The revision petition stands disposed of.

The respondent No. 1is entitled to get the money awarded from the amount deposited by the petitioner with the State Commission and rest of the amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioner alongwith interest accrued thereon.