Order Name: Kamaljeet Singh Shekhawat Vs. Komatsu India Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: F.A. No. 1876/2017
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Mr. Subhash Chandra and AVM J. Rajendra, recently reviewed a case that sheds light on consumer rights, particularly focusing on products bought to support one’s livelihood. The Commission emphasized that complaints regarding such products cannot be dismissed without thorough investigation, and a rigid formula should not be used to classify them as commercial purchases.
Case Background
In this case, the complainant, Kamaljeet Singh Shekhawat, purchased a Poclain (L&T Komatsu) Hydraulic Excavator for Rs 59,11,000. Unfortunately, soon after the purchase, the excavator developed several mechanical problems. Although Komatsu India, the company responsible for the machine, charged for repairs, these issues persisted, including frequent oil changes and filter replacements. Eventually, the machine broke down completely due to a hydraulic pump and swing motor failure, with the repair costs estimated at Rs 9,00,000. When the complainant requested the return of the damaged parts, Komatsu India did not comply. Frustrated, he filed a complaint alleging a deficiency in service. However, the State Commission of Rajasthan dismissed the complaint, arguing that he did not qualify as a ‘consumer’ under the law. This prompted an appeal to the National Commission.
Arguments from Komatsu India
Komatsu India defended the State Commission’s decision, claiming it was well-founded. They highlighted that the complainant admitted to using the excavator for his family business, which they argued was a commercial activity. They further pointed out that he had taken a substantial loan of Rs 1,29,00,000, implying commercial intent. Additionally, Komatsu India argued that any misuse of the excavator was not covered by the warranty, citing previous Supreme Court rulings to back their stance.
National Commission’s Observations
The National Commission scrutinized the evidence, noting that the complaint was based on alleged manufacturing defects and poor service. It was evident from the records that the excavator needed frequent repairs soon after purchase, something Komatsu India did not dispute. However, the company failed to justify why warranty benefits were not provided despite the complainant’s requests. The Commission found that the assumption of commercial use was made without solid evidence, as the excavator was used in a stone mine owned by the complainant’s brother. The State Commission’s reliance on Supreme Court rulings was deemed inappropriate, as they had not adequately proven that the complainant was not a consumer. The National Commission highlighted previous cases, such as Rohit Choudhary vs. Vipul Limited and Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust vs. Unique Shanti Developers, which underscore the need for careful evaluation of complaints related to livelihood purchases.
Conclusion
The National Commission determined that the State Commission had erred in dismissing the complaint by incorrectly concluding that the complainant was not a consumer. The appeal was allowed, and the case was sent back to the State Commission for a fresh review, urging them to carefully consider all evidence.
Takeaway
This case underscores the importance of a nuanced approach when dealing with consumer complaints related to livelihood purchases. It highlights that assumptions about commercial use should not replace a thorough examination of evidence, reminding consumers of their rights to fair redressal.
