Action Construction Equipment Ltd vs Tapesh Dev

THE complainant/respondent no. 1 purchased one Backhoe Loader with Tool Kit from the petitioner Company for a total consideration of Rs. 15,50,000/ - and the aforesaid machine was delivered on 01.01.2011. Alleging several defects in the aforesaid machine, the complainant/respondent no. 1 approached the concerned District Forum, seeking a direction for replacement of the machine or in the alternative return of cost amounting to Rs. 15,50,000/ - with interest and compensation.

THE complaint was resisted by the petitioner Company. It was pointed out in the reply that on receipt of complaint from the complainant/respondent no. 1, the Engineer/Technician had visited the place of the complainant and had removed the defects pointed by him on several occasions.

VIDE its order dated 28.04.2012, the concerned District Forum directed opposite parties no. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 in the complaint, which includes the petitioner Company to pay a sum of Rs. 15,50,000/ - to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 15% per annum, compensation amounting to Rs. 10,000/ - and cost of litigation amounting to Rs. 2,000/ -. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the aforesaid opposite parties approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 28.11.2014, the State Commission set aside the direction for payment of compensation, but upheld the remaining direction given by the District Forum.

BEING aggrieved, the petitioner Company is before us by way of this revision petition.

WHEN this revision petition came up for hearing before us on 16.02.2015, we asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner Company was ready to replace the machine in question. The learned counsel stated on instructions that the petitioner Company was ready to replace the said machine. Considering that the primary prayer made in the complaint was for replacement of the machine, we modify the order passed by the Fora below by directing the petitioner Company to replace the machine in question by a new machine within eight weeks from today against the delivery of the previous machine sold to the complainant. The petitioner Company is also directed to give warranty, as per its policy from the date the new machine is delivered to the complainant. We also direct the complainant to deliver the previous machine with all its part and components intact, to the petitioner Company.

THE petitioner Company shall intimate the complainant within two weeks from today as to at which point of delivery the new machine shall be delivered to him. The complainant shall take the previous machine to the aforesaid point of delivery on the date stipulated in the letter of the petitioner Company. The requisite freight charges for taking the machine from the place of the complainant to the point of the delivery shall be initially incurred by the complainant but later reimbursed to him, by the petitioner Company. On so appointed date, the new machine will be delivered to the complainant against the previous machine with all parts and component intact in it. In case the petitioner Company fails to comply with this direction, then this revision petition shall stand dismissed thereby restoring the order passed by the State Commission. If the complainant/respondent no. 1 fails to bring the previous machine with all its parts and components intact, to the point of delivery conveyed by the petitioner Company, on the appointed date, the complaint shall stand dismissed without any further orders. The Revision Petition stands disposed of. Dasti.