IMPORTANT POINT
When the supplier offers certain qualities in the machine it should have the same on installation also and if the qualities are found lacking, the same would amount to unfair trade practice as stipulated under section 2.1 (r) of Consumer Protection Act.

S. Chandra Mohan Nair, Member—Aggrieved by the order dated. 3.12.99, the complainant in OP. 86/99 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur has preferred this appeal against the directions of the forum to the opposite parties to repair/rectify the defects of the machinery by replacement of the defective parts and handover the same to complainant in a serviceable condition, and to pay Rs. 2500/- as compensation for the financial loss and inconvenience alongwith cost of Rs. 1000/-.

2. The grievances voiced in the complaint are that the complainant has purchased a fully Automatic Plunger Type horizontal Plastic injection moulding machine with accessories from the opposite parties on 25.2.98 by paying a sum of Rs. 4,70,000/- and that after the installation of the same the machinery did not function properly from that date of functioning of the unit on 7.8.98. It is alleged that though he had enough orders from various firms he could not execute the orders because of the defects in the machinery and in spite of repeated requests to the opposite parties to rectify the defects, the same were not done and as such the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to compensate the loss of Rs. 2,25,000/- with 18% interest from 7.8.98.

3. The 1st opposite party entered appearance and filed version wherein it was contended that there was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice in supplying the machinery and that the machinery was installed to the full satisfaction of the complainant. It was also contended that the complaints was filed without any bonafides and once the goods were delivered at the site of the petitioner, the contract is concluded and thus the opposite parties had nothing to do further. However it was submitted that the opposite parties were ready to repair and make the machinery in excellent working condition if the complainant supplies the parts of the machinery which are found to be defective.

4. The evidence consisted of the affidavit of the complainant and Exts. P1 to P3. On the side of the opposite parties letter dated 19.2.98 sent by the complainant to the financial corporation was marked as Ext. R1 The Commissioner’s report was marked as Ext.C1 and based on the available facts the forum passed the impugned order directing the opposite parties to repair/rectify the defects and to pay compensation of Rs. 2500 and cost of Rs. 1000/-.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted his arguments based on the averments in the complaint and the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He submitted before us that the forum below did not appreciate the Commissioner’s report in its proper perspective where it is specifically sated that the machinery did not operate in the semi and automatic module and that it was working only in the manual operation mode. The learned counsel submitted before us that the Commissioner had found so many defects in the machinery and even though the forum had ordered for the rectification of the defects, the opposite parties had not cared to do the same so far. The learned counsel invited our attention to the decision reported in II(2000) CTJ 842 wherein it is stated that when the machine in question did not have the qualities mentioned in its brochure the same will amount to unfair trade practice and the same is applicable in the present case. He argued that the complainant has purchased the machinery for a huge amount of Rs. 4,70,000/- after availing loan from the Kerala Financial Corporation on the assurance from the opposite parties that the machine is fully automatic and would work without any trouble, whereby he could earn a livelihood and repay the loan of Kerala Financial Corporation. It is his specific case that the machinery did not work in the automatic and semi automatic modes even for a single day which would amount to unfair trade practice and the forum ought to have moulded the relief in such a way as to repay the price of Rs. 4