A seller is liable for deficiency in service when a machine sold suffers from inherent manufacturing defects, evidenced by expert reports that remain unrebutted, and the appellate commission will not interfere with well-reasoned findings of lower consumer forums unless there is clear illegality.

ORDER

DR.SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J

1. The relevant facts of the present complaint are that Brijbhushan Paikra/the complainant/the respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant’) on 05.01.2011 purchased one bricks press machine for his self-employment for consideration of Rs. 10,12,620/- vide bill No. 10-11/63 and delivery no. FH/10-11/68 from Director, First House/the petitioner /the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘the opposite party’) and said machine was delivered on the same day. The functioning of the said machine is to prepare the mixture and place mixture into the machine to prepare the bricks. The complainant installed said machine at his work place situated at Gram Birkoni, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. The complainant appointed five laborers and one technical person to operate the machine. The machine stopped functioning after two days of its installation and the opposite party was intimated immediately. The complainant also lodged the complaint 2/3 times and also contacted the opposite party but the problem in the functioning of the machine was not resolved. The opposite party also assured that mechanic would be sent within 1 -2 days but no mechanic was sent by the opposite party. The complainant suffered heavy financial losses due to its non-functioning of the machine. However one mechanic of the respondent visited the work place of the complainant after 8-10 days but he could not repair the said machine despite repeated efforts. The mechanic informed that some spare parts were required to be replaced in the machine but no solution was made out for getting the machine functional. The complainant paid salary to six laborers for one month. The complainant being aggrieved filed present consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) bearing CC no. 06 of 2013 titled as Brijbhushan Paikara V Director, First House before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’) wherein alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The complainant prayed as under:-

1. To pay the amount of Rs. 1012620/- price of the bricks press machine along with interest @9%.

2. To pay the amount of Rs. 21000/- salary of six labourers and business loss of two months Rs. 100000/-.

3. Any other relief which the Hon’ble Forum deems fit may also be awarded against the OP.

2. The opposite party failed to appear before the District Forum despite service of the notice. The District Forum vide order dated 10.12.2013 dismissed the complaint on the ground that there was no proper evidence on behalf of the the complainant to prove the deficiency in service against the opposite party. The complainant being aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.2013 passed by the District Forum filed an appeal under section 15 of the Act bearing F.A. No.14 of 2024 titled as Brajbhushan Paikra V Director, First House before Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’). The State Commission vide order dated 24.09.2014 dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant by holding that the District Forum has given correct observation and order passed by the District Forum did not want any interference. The complainant thereafter filed a revision petition under section 21(b) of the Act bearing RP no 4381 of 2014 before this Commission and this Commission vide order dated 29.03.2016 set-aside the orders passed by both the District Forum and the State Commission and re