Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. M/s. East India Construction Company a partnership firm engaged in the construction business is a repudiated civil construction company within the State of Jharkhand which is the complainant in this case. The complainant placed an order for the purchase of one Backoe Loader manufactured by TELCO and paid Rs. 15,37,000 in advance and order was placed with M/s. Rafiq Ahmed Modern Consultancy Service Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Consultancy service), on behalf of Telco. Demand Drafts were issued in favour of Telco payable at Jamshedpur for Rs. 09.00 lakh and Rs. 6,37,000 respectively. The Backhoe Loader namely TATA JD 315 V was delivered at the complainant's work site on 11.2.2003, 10 days after the scheduled date of delivery. It had a warranty of one year/2000 hours from 11.2.2003. Complainant has stated that within a fortnight of the delivery i.e., 24.2.2003 the 'Elbow' of the machine was broken which was not replaced immediately. It was only repaired, though as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, it was to be replaced. Subsequently, the wire hamess got burnt, fuel assembly unit, nut, olive, cracked which were temporarily repaired. The complainant wrote a series of letters on 26.2.2003, 8.4.2003, 21.4,2003, 14.5.2003 and 5.6.2003 respectively regarding defects to the opposite parties. Consultancy Services - O.P. No. 1 inspected the said machine and sent Service Engineer on 11.2.2003, 13.3.2003, 24.3.2003, 22.4.2003, 30,4.2003, 5.5.2003 and 27,6.2003 but could not remove the defects as yet. Accordingly the machine was standing idle for change of parts within the warranty period. This was causing loss to the complainant. As the opposite party was behaving in a most negligent manner, it had not only caused loss to the complainant but it has suffered mental pressure and agony. According to the complainant due to the poor workmanship of manufacturer, the defects in the machine ab initio and due to extreme negligence of non-rendering of service the complainant is entitled to following compensation:

5. At the time of delivery, the Service Engineer was present who checked all the operations which were found to be satisfactory before the machine was handed over to the customer. The Project Engineer of the complainant affixed his signature confirming this. The Service Engineer Mr. M.N. Huda had welded the broken elbow and connected the machine. On customer's directions engine oil, engine oil filter, etc., were replaced and the machine was tested and was found to be in good working condition. Another service report dated 13.3.2003 indicated that Service Engineer Mr. S.K. Rana found fuel filter choked, fuel oil liners are jammed, feed pump also jammed. These were cleaned and replaced. The customer was cautioned on 21.3.2003 not to use high resistance wire in place of fuse but the customer refused to sign the report. On 5.5.2003 the Service Engineer reported that various problems occurred due to defects found in fuel which was contaminated. In another service report dated 28.6.2003 Mr. A. Chaterjee found that after 45 to 60 minutes of working the machine stopped automatically and does not start immediately but after a few minutes the machine starts. The Service Engineer opened the Fuel Injunction Pump (FIP) from the machine for recalibration as per the instructions by the senior officer. Since FIP was under warranty from Singbhoom Diesels an authorised dealer/workshop for MICO and BOSCH products. FIP is damaged due to mishandling, etc., and it is not a manufacturing defect. It had to be repaired at a cost of Rs. 10,900.00 and it is chargeable.

18. Similar was the finding of the National Commission in O.P./290/1997 - Jindal Drilling & fad. Ltd. v. Indocom Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

19. Hence, it is very clear that M/s. East India Construction Co. is a consumer and is entitled for protection under the Act.

20. The next issue to be considered whether the equipment supplied by TELCO suffered from manufacturing defects. In this case it is profitable to refer to the frequent complaints made by the buyer of the equipment who has stated that the most important part of the machine Backhoe Loader namely the 'Elbow' was broken and instead of replacing the same it was welded. The service report dated 13.3.2003 indicates that there was several problems and efforts were made to rectify the same. The service report dated 21.3.2003 indicates that wire harness was damaged. The subsequent report dated 5.5.2003 also indicates several defects which have been analysed in great detail by the State Commission. It is true that the Service engineer advised use of particular type of fuel. It is nowhere proved that good quality fuel, engine oil were not used. The purchaser of the equipment is a contractor of repute. A businessman would like to use pure quality fuel for such a costly equipment. Repeated correspondence with the East India Construction Co. addressed by TELCO from 8.5.2003 onwards to 5.6.2003, etc. speaks the volume about the defects in the equipment and continuous breakdown of the machinery despite repairs made time-to-time by the Service Engineer.