STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Appeal No.A/22/544 (Arising against the order dated 13/06/2022 passed by the D.F.Solapur in CC/19/105)

Mr.Ahmed Mohammad Shaikh R/o. Yelamb Post Chikharde Taluka Barshi, ...... Appellant/org.complainant Solapur 423 404 Versus Panjatan Agro Products And Enterprises Through Nihal Atar ………Respondent/org.OP.

Shivapur Wada, Taluka Haveli District Pune 412 205 BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member PRESENT: Adv.Swapnil Dhage i/b. Adv. Rajesh Chavan for appellant Adv.Ajit V.Alange for respondent FINAL ORDER (Dt.20/03/2025)

Per Hon’ble Vijay C.Premchandani – Member

1. The present appellant, who is original complainant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 13/06/2022 passed in consumer complaint no.105/2019 by the Ld.District Consumer Commission, Solapur by partly allowing the consumer complaint.

BRIEF FACTS:-

2. The Appellant who is original complainant is a farmer by occupation. The Opposite Party is an Enterprise of the Panjatan Agro Products And Enterprises. The Opposite Party is engaged in the business of manufacture, produce and sell of the machines. The Complainant on 22/12/2020 paid the advance amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) to Opposite Party for the purchase of the Two Tamarind Seed Removal Machine, One Tamarind Cover Removal Machine and One Tamarind Hydraulic Pressure Machine from Opposite Party for Consideration. Thereafter, the Complainant applied for loan in Bank of India, Barshi Branch to Purchase the product from Opposite Party. On 10/02/2021 the said bank sanctioned the loan to Complainant. On the request of the Opposite Party, the Bank directly transferred the remaining purchase amount to the account of Opposite Party in Axis Bank, Khed Shivapur Branch dated 26/02/2021. The Complainant received the delivery of the three machinery on 04/03/2021 being One Tamarind Seed removal machine, One Tamarind Cover Removal Machine, One Tamarind Hydraulic pressure machine on his own cost of transportation from Khed Shivapur, Pune factory outlet to Barshi at Rs.15,000/-. The Complainant on 09/03/2021 received the delivery of remaining one machine namely One Tamarind seed removal machine, the transport cost of the said machine was borne by the Appellant. The said Payment for Transport Cost of the machine was made partly in cash and partly online. Thereafter, the Tamarind Cover Removal Machine broke down and started to give problems after 3 to 4 days of working. The said machine could only remove 40% of the cover of tamarind. Furthermore, the said machine started to destroy the tamarind completely, instead of removing cover of the tamarind. The Complainant states that after several complaints of abrupt breakdown of the machine, the Opposite Party sent a person for servicing purpose of the said machine. Nevertheless, the said person after spending the entire day could not solve the any of problem and he left the place in worse condition than before. Further, the Opposite Party denied to take any responsibility for continued & worsened breakdown of the said machine. Therefore, the complainant compelled to file the original consumer complaint before the Ld.District Consumer Commission, Solapur against the respondent company for getting refund of the amount of machinery. However, the complaint was partly allowed and the respondent was directed to repair the machine of complainant.

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL-

3. The complainant has claimed the total amount of the machinery from the respondent i.e. Rs.4,93,500/-, for which he obtained the loan from State Bank of India. Due to the fault in the machinery and tamarind cover removal machine broke down and the said machinery was faulty in manufacturing itself and hence cannot be subject to repairs as ordered by the Ld.District Consumer Commission.

4. The present appellant sought the refund of the machinery amount along with the interest and the loss suffered due to the break-dow