AZAD Vs. PARAVOOR ENGINEERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant against the impugned order dated 5.8.2016 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 August, 15, 201 As the machine became defective, on information, the service personnel of the Respondent repaired the machine. Even thereafter, the defect continued occurred. The Respondent that 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 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.