THE KERALA STATE  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD,  THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL.NO- 386/2015

JUDGMENT  DATED. 05/08/2016

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No. 114/2013, CDRF,Ernakulam)

PRESENT:-

          JUSTICE.  SRI. P.Q. BARKATH ALI  : PRESIDENT

          SRI. V.V.JOSE                                          : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

            Paravoor Engineers,

          Rep.by its Proprietor,

          Mr. Sarun , Near Kallarakal Temple,

          Peruvaram, Kottuvally Village, North Paravur Taluk,

          Ernakulam District. 683513.

          (By Adv. Bhasi & Antony)

      V/S

RESPONDENT:

                Azad, S/o Siddique,

          Theyyidayil  House,

          Padinjarekkara P.O,

          Vaikom- 686615, Kottayam District.

(By Adv. Lissy  T. Skaria)

-2-

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE . SRI. P.Q. BARKATH ALI: PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC.No. 114/2013 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam challenging the order of the Forum dated August 7,  2015  directing the opposite party to replace the Chapathi making machine with a new one and pay a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- and a cost of Rs. 15,000/-.

The case of the Complainant  as testified  by him as PW1 before the Forum and as detailed   in the complaint in brief  is this.

Complainant purchased a ‘ Chapathi’ and ‘ Pathiri’  making machine from the opposite party for Rs.  8,92,500/- to start  a small scale industry for eking  his livelihood.  The opposite party promised that it’s  a fully  automatic machine  and   would  make  1500/-  Chapathi and Pathiri in an hour.  But within 3 days  of the  installation   the machine  became  defective.  Complainant availed a loan  Rs. 7,50,000/-from 

                                                                   -3-

Vaikkom  Branch State Bank of Travancore  to purchase the machine.  Rs. 15,000/- was given as advance to the opposite party on February 14, 2012 and  machine was installed on August 15, 2012.  As the machine became defective, on information from the  Complainant the service personnels of opposite party repaired the machine.  Even thereafter the defect occurred.  The opposite party has committed deficiency in service in selling defective machine to the complainant.  Therefore complainant filed the complaint claiming price of  the machine Rs. 8,92,500/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation.

The opposite party is M/s. North Paravur Engineers represented by its Proprietor.  He in his version contended thus  before the Forum.  The   purchase of the machinery by the complainant from the opposite party is admitted.  At the request of the complainant/ opposite party  provided two trained persons  to teach food processing techniques to the complainant.  Complainant lost the  skilled workers due to  some labour  problem.  Therefore complainant  himself was operating  the machine. 

                                                                   (4)

When the opposite party received the complaint about the non working of the wheat sprinkling portion, the  opposite party got it repaired.  Complainant  had opened the machine  without adequate tools.  The defects occurred only due to the mishandling of the machine by the complainant.  The opposite party supplied only semi automatic machine.  Therefore complaint has to be dismissed. 

Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exbt. A1 to A15  were marked on the side of the complainant before the Forum.  The report of the Commissioner  was marked as Exbt. C1 .  No evidence was adduced  by the opposite  parties.  On an appreciation of evidence the Forum  found that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and directed them to replace the machine with a new one and awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- and a cost of Rs. 15,000/-.  Opposite party has now come up in appeal  challenging the said order of the Forum.

           Heard both the counsels.

                                                 (5)

The  following points arise for considerations.

1. Whether there was any deficiency  in service on the part of opposite party.
2.  Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained.

The purchase of the machinery by the complainant from the opposite party is admitted.  Exbt. C1 the report of  Expert Commissioner shows that machinery  is defective.  During the pendency of the appeal  as directed by this Commission  opposite party replaced the defective machine with a new one.  Therefore  now the only question  to be decided is what is  compensation  the complainant  is entitled.  Forum  ordered a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-.  The opposite party has replaced the old machine with a new one.  But the complainant was unable  to operate  the machine  discontinue  his business for more than 2 years.  That apart  he was  compelled to filed the complaint before the Forum and to appear before this Commission in this appeal.  Taking in

                                                          (6)

to consideration all these aspects  we feel that a  compensation of  Rs. 1,00,000/- would be reasonable.  Forum has ordered a cost of Rs. 15,000/- which appears reasonable. 

In the result this appeal is allowed in part.  The compensation awarded by the Forum is reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/-.  Complainant  is entitled to a cost of  Rs. 15,000/- before the Forum and Rs. 5,000/-  in this  appeal.               

              JUSTICE.  P.Q. BARKATH ALI  : PRESIDENT

                              V.V.JOSE                          : MEMBER

Sh/-