Present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant against the impugned order dated 05.08.2016 passed by Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 386 of 2015.

2.          Brief facts of this case are that Petitioner/Complainant purchased a ‘Chapatti’ and ‘Pathiri’ making machine from the Respondent/Opposite Party for Rs.8,92,500/- to start  a small scale industry for earning  his livelihood.  The respondent promised that it was a fully automatic machine and  it  would  make  1500  Chapati and Pathiri in an hour.  But within 3 days of its installation, the machine became  defective.  The Petitioner had availed a loan Rs.7,50,000/-from Vaikkom  Branch State Bank of Travancore  to purchase the machine.  Rs. 15,000/- was given as advance to the Respondent on February 14, 2012 and machine was installed on August15, 2012.  As the machine became defective, on information, the service personnel of the Respondent repaired the machine.  Even thereafter, the defect  continued occurred.  The Respondent had committed deficiency in service in selling a defective machine to the Petitioner.  Hence, a consumer complaint claiming price of the machine Rs.8,92,500/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation was filed before the District Forum.

3.      The  Respondent contested the Complaint by filing its written reply. It was admitted therein to the extent of  purchase of the machinery by the Petitioner from him. The Respondent stated that at the request of the Petitioner, they had provided had two trained persons to teach food processing techniques to him and two other persons who were skilled in food processing techniques.  But he lost skilled workers due to  some labour  problem.  Therefore, the Petitioner himself was operating the machine.  When the Respondent received the complaint about the non-working of the wheat-sprinkling portion, they got it repaired. The Petitioner had opened the machine  without adequate tools.  The defects occurred only due to the mishandling of the machine by him. The Respondent had supplied only a semi-automatic machine.  Therefore, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. 

4.      The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam (for short, ‘District Forum’) vide its order dated 17.04.2015 held;

“ 10. Issue No. iii. :- Having found issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the complainant, we find that the complainant is entitled to get a fully automatic machine as promised and as per the price list kept by the opposite party in the year 2012. The complainant is entitled to get provided such a machine with a full warranty of one year in case of the replacement of the old one provided to the complainant. This shall be done within a period of 2 months. The complainant is also entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs (Rupees Three lakhs only) for keeping down his industrial units closed without any response from the opposite party for the last more than 2 years. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) as costs of the proceedings, it is inclusive of the batta paid to the commissioner.”

5.      Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Respondent/Opposite Party filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission while partly allowing the Appeal, vide their order dated 05.08.2016, observed as under;

           “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   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.”               

6.      Hence, the Revision Petition.

7.      We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

8.      The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the State Commission has gravely erred in interfering with the order of the District Forum by reducing compensation from Rs.3.00 Lakhs to Rs.1.00 Lakh. The State Commission has failed to appreciate the huge financial loss suffered by the Petitioner due to deficiency in service of the Respondent. Hence, he urged that compensation should be restored to Rs.3.00 Lakhs.

9.      We have carefully gone through the record.

10.    In the complaint, the Petitioner/Complainant has stated that he could not conduct his business properly due to defect in the machine. The wheat sprinkling-portion of the machine was not working and the machine was not making 1500 chapattis as promised by the Respondent. As a result, the Petitioner could not satisfy the increasing demand of his product and his customers were not satisfied with the service.

11.    Though he alleged defects in the machine, nowhere in his complaint, was he specific about the nature of defects. In his complaint, he asked for refund of Rs.8,92,000/- being cost of the machine along with interest @12% p.a and also claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-towards compensation. He claimed the compensation due to defective and non-functioning of the machine. However, nowhere in his Complaint, has the Petitioner given any basis for claiming of Rs.5,00,000/-as compensation from the Respondent/Opposite Party.

12.    On the other hand, in their written statement, the Respondent/Opposite Party stated that the Petitioner had purchased the Chapatti Making Unit after completing training with full satisfaction and the Chapatti Making Unit was installed and it was worked perfectly for a long time. The Respondent has further stated that the Petitioner had purchased a semi-automatic Chapatti Making Unit and not a fully automatic machine, and the machine purchased by him could not produce 15,000 Chapatti per hour which only a fully automatic machine can produce.  Further, they had given training of 10 days to the Petitioner and two other persons skilled in food processing techniques and that the skilled workers had left the Petitioner’s unit due to some labour problems, then he operated the unit himself and was not able to do so. The Respondent stated that the Petitioner himself opened that particular portion of the unit and that he could not rectify the sprinkle portion of that unit.   

13.    As per order of the State Commission, during the pendency of the Appeal and as directed, the Respondent replaced the defective machine with a new one. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner did not controvert this fact. The only issue that remains is regarding the quantum of compensation. As mentioned earlier, there is not even iota of evidence on record on behalf of the Petitioner to establish the basis on which the Petitioner had arrived at having  suffered a loss of Rs.5,00,000/- due to non-functioning of the machine, either in his Complaint, or before the State Commission or even now in the Revision Petitioner except for giving a bald statement that he has suffered a loss by purchasing of the machine and that he had spent Rs.1,50,000/- for essential equipment associated with the Chapatti Making Unit. However, the above expenditure of Rs.1,50,000/- will not be rendered infructuous or wasted because admittedly, Petitioner’s old Chapatti Machine has already been replaced with a new one during the pendency of the Appeal before the State Commission. Hence, we are of the considered view, the Petitioner has completely failed to produce any evidence to support his claim for enhancement of the compensation.

14.    Thus, in view of the above discussions, we find that no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us in the impugned order to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity in partly allowed the Appeal filed by the Respondent by reducing compensation from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. The present Revision Petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed.

15.    No order as to cost.