##PAGE1##

BEFORE THE HON'BLE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE AT MUMBAI

APPEAL NO. SC/27/FA/42/2023

(Arisen out of order dated 04-11-2022 in Consumer

Complaint No.CC/09/2021 passed by the Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Sangli)

Shree Sai Agro Industries

Thro’ its Proprietor

Shri Suraj Ashok Nikam

Age-35 years, Occ: Self Employment

Gut No: 943, Vangi, Tal-Kedgaon,

District – Sangli. ……… Appellant

Versus

Vishal Techno Agencies

Thro’ Proprietor

Mr. Ankit Dinesh Varma

Having office at 238, Dhar Road,

(Deo Krushna Bang),

Madhya Pradesh, Indore – 452009. ….…. Respondent

BEFORE:

Justice Mr. S.P. Tavade, Hon’ble President

Mr. Vijay C. Premchandani, Hon’ble Member

Appearance:

Advocate for Appellant : Advocate Ajay Keshav Pawar

Advocate for Respondent : Advocate Dhananjay Bhosale

A/23/42 Page 2 of 7

:- ORDER:-

(Dated : 30-12-2025)

Per: Hon’ble Justice Mr. S.P. Tavade - President

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Order dated

08/01/2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission, Sangli in consumer complaint No.CC/09/2021 dated

04-11-2022 the original Complainant preferred this Appeal. The

parties to this Appeal shall be called and referred as per their

status in the original complaint.

Facts of the complaint are as follows

2. The Complainant was unemployed Engineer, he decided to start

small scale business of production of Dal and Besan Flour (Gram

Flour) for his livelihood. He came to know the about the

respondent, hence the Complainant contacted Opposite Party who

was manufacturer of Gram Flour machine with cyclone tank. The

Opposite Party sent quotation of Gram Flour machine with cyclone

tank, pulley without electric motor on 19-11-2018. The cost of the

machine was Rupees 12,30,001.50. The Opposite Party

represented that the said machine would have capacity to produce

approximately 500 to 700 kq. Besan Flour (gram) per hour and also

represented that the performance of the said machine shall be very

good and will give satisfactory performance. On the base of said

representation the Complainant decided to purchase the said

machine for Rupees 12,50,000/- including installation. The

Complainant paid entire amount of consideration of machine by

taking loan from Corporation Bank, Vangi, District Satara. It was

RRP

A/23/42 Page 3 of 7

contended that, the Opposite Party had assured that the delivery

the machine in the month of January 2019. Machine was delivered

in month on January 2019, but delivery was incomplete. No

Engineer was sent alongwith machine for installation. It was

contended that, on the instruction of Complainant the Opposite

Party sent expert Engineer in the month of March 2019 and

installed the machine. The same machine not working properly,

the Engineer told Complainant that machine is not good quality.

Complainant run machine till last week of March 2019, but it had

not delivered good result. The machine was produced only 200 kg.

gram flour per hour instead of 500 – 700 kg. per hour. There was

fault in the machine and there was leakage of flour. There was gap

between shaft and pulley Impact Pulverizer of the said machine,

which resulted in huge loss to the Complainant. Hence the

Complainant requested to the Opposite Party to sent expert

Engineer, but it was not sent and Complainant was put to loss.

3. It was contended that, Complainant had installed 3 electric

motors having capacity of 43 H.P. as per required. The machine

provided by the Opposite Party was defective and manufacturing

defect. Therefore, the Complainant filed complaint and claim

compensation and refund of price of machine.

4. Notice of the complaint sent to the Opposite Party who

appeared through his Advocate and filed written statement. The

Opposite Party has admitted that the Complainant had purchased

the Gram flour machine alongiwth cyclone tank, pulley without

electric motor. It was also contended that Complainant had paid

entire amount of machine to the Opposite Party. It was contended

RRP

A/23/42 Page 4 of 7

that the Complainant was asked to