Chander Shekher Sharma, Member—his appeal is directed against the order of District Forum, Kullu, dated 08.01.2008 passed in consumer Complaint No.2/2007, whereby the complaint of respondent for recovery of Rs.30,000/- was allowed and the complainant was directed to return the winding machine, equipment and raw material available with him to the appellant. In addition to this, interest @ 9% per annum from institution of complaint till its payment was also awarded, cost of litigation was also quantified at Rs.2,000/-.

2. Facts of the case as emerge from record are that the complainant, who is an unemployed youth had read advertisement given in the newspaper by the appellant, wherein it had been stated that the appellant is promoting self employment in Himachal Pradesh by helping the interested applicants to set up industry for the manufacturing of tube choke etc. This advertisement was published in various newspapers of 21st January, 2006 and similar advertisement was also published by appellant again on 12.09.2006 in newspapers vide Annexure A-1 and A-2.

3. In the said advertisement, it was stated that the interested parties who are ready to invest Rs.30,000/- can start their own industry of manufacturing tube chokes and it was also assured by appellant that necessary material will be supplied and training will also be provided by appellant at the home of the applicants and thereafter finished goods will be marketed in local area. The respondent after being influenced by such advertisement had talk with the representative of appellant, who had introduced himself as Rajesh Mahajan being Proprietor and Manager of the industry of appellant and on 25th January, 2006 at Bhuntar agreement Annexure A-3 was signed by respondent, which was already signed by one Shri Amrit Kumar.

4. Further allegations in the complaint are that on 25.01.2006, the appellant had supplied one old winding machine (for manufacturing of tube chokes) and an amount of Rs.20,000/- was received from the respondent and the appellant had given instructions to one Shri Sanjay Kumar to install the said machinery and also to impart training for 3 days to the respondent.

5. Other averments in the complaint are that on 26th January, 2006, Shri Sanjay Kumar representative of complainant had again visited Village Bhuntar and the respondent had made balance payment of Rs.10,000/- to him and then assurance was given to the respondent by Shri Sanjay Kumar that he will come tomorrow and give training for two more days, but thereafter Shri Sanjay Kumar did not turn up even repeated requests made by respondent. Even the machine supplied to the respondent by the appellant broke down soon-after its installation and it was not working and as such matter was brought to the notice of appellant, who had assured that the machine will be changed in week’s time and training will also be provided for complete manufacturing of choke tubes. Appellant had not paid any heed to the requests made to the appellant in the matter and even not attended the telephonic calls made by respondent as such, the complainant has suffered loss on account of supply of defective winding machine which amounts to deficiency of service/unfair trade practice on the part of appellant.

6. In this background, complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed, wherein respondent had sought relief for directing the appellant to pay back a sum of Rs.30,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum and also to take back winding machine and winding rolls and compensation of Rs.10,000/- was also claimed for harassment and mental agony.

7. Appellant in the present case has contested and resisted the complaint before District Forum below and his plea was that there was deficiency of service on his part and he has supplied the winding machine in good condition and as per Sale of Goods Act, it was the duty of respondent to check the machine before purchasing the same and the machine had broken down due t