D.O.F:19/07/2022     

                                                                                                          D.O.O:11/09/2024

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD

                                 CC.155/2022

Dated this, the 11^th   day of September 2024

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                                         : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA. K.G                                      : MEMBER

Rathnakaran.K.C ,

Theruvath.House,

Bedadukka P.O,

Chengala, Kasaragod.                                     : Complainant

                                                            And

Perfect Agro Machineries,

Chalingal , Haripuram P.O                               : Opposite Party

Kasaragod. 671531

ORDER

SRI. KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT

          The case of the complainant is that he purchased a grass cutting machine from Opposite Party No:1 With Krishi Bhavan Subsidy.  But when the machine kept in shoulder it starts automatically, discharges too much smoke.  It was taken to machine for repair but still it is not cured the motor was removed and kept idle and working with other motors.   The complainant is working is disrupted for two months the complainant alleges that Opposite Party No:1 sold the machine having manufacturing defect .  It may causes threat to the life of the user.  The supplied machine is not good for use.  The opposite Party has committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused heavy monitory loss and mental agony for which complainant claim 1 Lakh (Rupees one lakh only) compensation and cost of the litigation.

          Notice of Opposite Party No:1 served and filed written version notice of opposite Party No:2 returned stating left.

          The Opposite Party No:1 denied all the allegation raised by complainant.  The case of Opposite Party No:1 is that the grass cutting machine was a product of Opposite Party No:2.  The machine is working smoothly there is no manufacturing defect to the product the aim of complainant is to make unlawful gain.  The Opposite party provided good after sale service.  There is no deficiency in service from opposite party and prayed to dismiss the complainant.

          The complainant filed chief affidavit and was cross examined as Pw1.   Ext A1 and A2 documents marked from his side.  The opposite Party not adduced any evidence.  The expert commissioner appointed by the Commission inspected the machine and filed its report marked as Ext C1.

          Considering the rival contentions following points arised for consideration in the case:

1. Whether the machine suffer from any manufacturing defect thereby complainant is eligible for refund of its price or replacement?
2. Whether there is any manufacturing defect from Opposite parties?
3. Whether complainant is entitled for any compensation? If so for what reliefs?

All the points are considered and discussed together for convenience?

     Here the case of the complainant is that the machine purchased by him starts untimely and it is not working properly while starting too much smoke is discharging.  The product is kept in idle and is of no use.  The Opposite Party cheated the complainant by selling defective product.

          In this case the report filed by the expert commissioner is marked as Ext C1.  The report of the expert states that he inspected the machine on 13/02/2023 by giving notice to the parties.  The experts opinions that there was starting trouble to the machine initially would be adjusted by mechanic.

          Other than above there is machine have no particular deviation and operation kept of a new mechanic of same model.

          Under the circumstances complainant is not entitled to replacement of the product or refund of its price since there is no manufacturing defect.

          The complainant has no grievance regarding deficiency in service of repair or any other after sale service.  Being a machine when it is operated it, requires some training to the operator and every machine is to be used with care and custom.

          Considering the report of the expert and pleadings and evidence, except the alleged manufacturing defect and starting trouble which is adjustable, no other grievance is raised by the complainant.  No reason or justification are made out to hold that Opposite party is responsible or liable to any negligence in the service to the complainant.  So there is no evidence for manufacturing defect or deficiency in service from opposite party in this case therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result complaint is dismissed without costs.

     Sd/-                                                                                               Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                      PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1- Receipt voucher

A2- Terms and conditions

A3- Machine photo

C1- Expert Commission report

Witness Examined

Pw1- Rathnakaran. K.C

    Sd/-                                                                                                        Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                            PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

Ps/                                                                 Assistant Registrar