The main legal point established is that in cases of manufacturing defects in products, the court may order the replacement of the defective part or a refund of the original cost.

ORDER

Mr. K. Chandradas Nadar, Judicial Member - Appellants were opposite parties in CC.No.121/2013 in the CDRF, Alappuzha. The sole respondent complainant purchased a plainer machine from the first opposite party. The second opposite party is the manufacturer of the machine. The machine with accessories were purchased on 03.07.2012 for an amount of Rs. 75,000/-. The allegation in the complaint is that within two months from the date of purchase, the machine became defective. The defect was brought to the notice of the opposite parties and the mechanic from the first opposite party inspected the machine and promised to replace the same. But failed to do so. Hence the complaint is filed seeking refund of the cost of machine along with compensation.

2. Opposite parties filed separate version. The first opposite party contended that detailed instruction was given to the complainant regarding the manner in which the machinery is to be used. He was told that use of machinery against instructions would cause damage to the machinery. The mechanic of the first opposite party inspected the machine and reported that use of the machinery on wood with protruding branches was the reason for the damage to the bed of the machine. According to the first opposite party the machinery is not fully broken down. Both the opposite parties contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part.

3. Before the consumer forum the complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.A1. The commissioner deputed by the consumer forum filed report which was marked as Ext.C1. Opposite parties adduced no oral or documentary evidence. The consumer forum as per the impugned order allowed the complaint and directed the opp.parties to replace the plainer machine and in the alternative to refund the original cost of the machine less 10%. The complainant was directed simultaneously to return the defective plainer machine. The appellants are challenging the order of the consumer forum.

4. One of the several arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants was that the plainer machine was purchased for commercial purpose. Hence the consumer complaint is not maintainable. It is true that there is no allegation in the complaint that the plainer machine was purchased for the purpose of the earning the livelihood of the complainant. But in the nature of things it is unlikely that a plainer machine is purchased for commercial use and the disputed issue being one of defect to the machine within the warranty period, it is unnecessary to reject the complaint at the threshold.

5. The second contention is that there was use of the machinery contrary to the instructions and that was the reason for the damage to the bed of the plainer machine. It is pointed out that if the plainer machine is used on wood with branches, it is likely to cause damage to the bed of the machine. It was so reported by the mechanic of the first opposite party. Ext.C1 report is in a way relevant to decide whether there was use contrary to the instructions. Ext.C1 report is also relevant to see whether the plainer machine suffered from any manufacturing defect.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that Ext.C1 report was prepared without notice to the opposite parties, appellants. There is nothing in Ext.C1 report to show that appellants were given notice of the impending inspection of the plainer machine. So Ext.C1 report requires closer scrutiny. The commissioner is of the opinion that the bed of the plainer machine is manufactured using cast iron. During planing of wood near the cutting tool, shock load is likely to develop causing stress and since the bed could not bear the stress load, that portion of the bed near the tool would be broken and lost. At that portion thickness was less for the bed. Ordinarily the bed of such machines are manufactured using ductile material like steel near cutting tool and the remaining portion in cast iron. If that was done the bed woul