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