1. This appeal arises out of order rendered by Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short he State Commission in complaint case no. 82 / 2002. By the impugned order, the complaint came to be dismissed. 2. The facts giving rise to the complaint may be briefly narrated as shown below:- 3. The appellant (complainant) purchased a photo imager machine manufactured by the OP No. 1 under a hire purchase agreement. The loan was granted by the OP No. 3 for such purchase of the photo imager machine. The purchase was made through agency of the OP No. 2. The cost of the machine was Rs.6,25,000/-. 4. The appellant came out with a case that since installation of the photo imager machine, it was non-functional because of manufacturing defects. There was loss caused to her due to supply of defective machine. She, therefore, filed a complaint for compensation on account of deficiency in the service and defective machinery provided by the Opposite parties. The Opposite Parties resisted the complaint. They categorically denied that the photo imager machine was defective. They submitted that the complaints about functioning of the machine was attended by the service Engineer of OP Nos. 1 & 2 from time to time and was found satisfactorily functioning. 4. The State Commission came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to establish defect in the photo imager machine. The State Commission came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to adduce evidence of any expert to show that the photo imager machine could not function due to certain manufacturing defect and hence the complaint was dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant material placed on record. 6. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the complainant is a housewife and has no knowledge about the mechanical operation of the photo imager machine. She does not possess any technical skill so as to highlight the manufacturing defects. It appears that she did not place on record any opinion of the expert. She filed only her affidavit and certificates issued by technicians of M/s. Krishna Colour Lab and RND expert of PHIL Corporation Ltd. These certificates were not proved by examining the concerned technician. The certificates are not based upon technical findings and data collected after operation of the machine. The State Commission noticed that both the said certificates remained unproved. It is not known whether the concerned technicians had actually examined the photo imager machine before the issuance of such certificates. It appears that the photo imager machine was, in fact, being operated by the husband of the complainant with help of some employees. Her husband and the concerned operator of the photo imager machine did not file any affidavit in support of the allegations made in the complaint. 7. What appears from the record is that the photo imager machine was installed on 08.05.98 with financial assistance obtained from the OP No. 3. The agreement between the appellant and the OP No. 3 shows that it was hire purchase agreement. The OP No. 3 gave finance to the extent of 90% of the cost of the machine. The remaining 10% of the amount was to be given after submission of satisfactory report about functioning of the machine. It is pertinent to notice that the appellant was free to choose the agent from whom the photo imager machine was to be purchased. Obviously, the OP No. 3 had no role to play in the purchase transaction. It is also important to note that after installation of the photo imager machine on 08.05.98, the appellant gave certificate on 08.05.98 about satisfactory working of the photo imager machine. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that such certificate was signed by the appellant on the format provided to her because the loan was to be released. It appears that the complaints of the appellant were attended to on further occasions on 17.06.99, 09.09.99, 06.12.99 and 13.05.2000 by the Service Engineer of the OP Nos. 1 & 2. The appellant thereafter certified on each occasion that the photo imager machine was working properly. The appellant never pointed out which part of the machine was defective but contended that the chemical used in the imager was of inferior quality. It appears from the record that on 06.05.99 a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed between the appellant and the OP No. 1 manufacturer. By that agreement, the OP No. 1 undertook to supply of three chemical kits of Imager 135 RA in phased manner. The agreement MOU was executed after about nine (09) months of the purchase of the said machine. It is difficult to say that the MOU was executed by the appellant under any compulsion or duress. The certification about satisfactory functioning of the photo imager machine was on the letter head of the appellant, and, therefore, it does not stand to reason that he signed same as per demand of the Opposite parties. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to certificate issued by Mr. K.M. Thombre, who claims to be Technical Expert and Electronic Engineer. He has certified that he photo imager machine was inspected by him in the State Warehousing Corporation on 25.08.2006. He certified that the machine was not in working condition and was found rusted and that all electrical and electronics parts were found in dead condition. This certificate is hardly of any relevance on the material issue. The photo imager machine was purchased by the appellant in the month of May, 1998. It appears that due to failure of the appellant to pay the installments, the OP No. 3 had repossessed the machine and, therefore, it was lying in the godown of State Warehousing Corporation, Indore (M.P.). It is but natural that after a period of 8 years, the machine was found jammed due to rusting of the parts. It is but natural that the machine could not be operated on 25.08.2006 due to the intervening developments and the process of rusting, For, it was not in regular use for more than 8 years. 9. Taking overall view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the appellant failed to prove that the photo imager machine suffered from any manufacturing defect and there was deficiency in the service rendered by the OPs. Needless to say the impugned order dismissing the complaint is just and proper and will have to be upheld, hence the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.