ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.474/2017

ORDER DATED : 18.03.2026

(Against the order in C.C.No.191/2015 on the files of DCDRC, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Printekgraph, Printing & Packing Machines, T.C.26/869, Panavila Junction, Thycaud P.O, Trivandrum-14 (by Adv. A. Hidayathulla)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

Siyad N., S/o Kunhimuhammed Haji (Late), Nechiyil House, Kodangadu, Kondotty P.O., Pin – 673638 (by Adv. R. Suja Madhav)

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT

The appellant is the opposite party in C.C.No.191/2015 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (for short, ‘the District Commission’).

2. The complainant purchased a paper plate machine from the opposite party for the purpose of starting a small-scale industry for self-employment under PMEGP Plan on 05.01.2015. The opposite party assured that about 6,000 plates could be made per hour. However, the number of plates as assured by the opposite party could not be produced using the machine. Moreover, the said machine had become defunct. The complainant sustained heavy loss on account of the non-functioning of the machine. The complainant spent Rs.3,17,100/- for purchasing the machine.

3. The opposite party filed a version inter alia admitting the purchase of the paper plate machine by the complainant from the opposite party on 05.01.2015. It is contended that the working of the machine was demonstrated to the complainant after installing the machine in the premises of the complainant. The complainant had given a letter admitting satisfaction with the functioning of the machine. The machine did not have any defect. If the machine was not achieving the result as expected, it might be due to the operation of the machine by inexperienced operators.

4. Before the District Commission, proof affidavit was filed by the complainant and the opposite party. On the side of the complainant, Exhibit A1 was marked. On the side of the opposite party, Exhibit B1 was marked. Exhibit C1 expert report was also marked. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the opposite party to refund the price of the machine after taking back the machine. The District Commission also directed the opposite party to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs.

5. Heard both sides. Perused the records.

6. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased a paper plate machine on 05.01.2015 for Rs.3,17,100/- for starting an SSI unit. Exhibit A1 is the invoice for the same. Exhibit B1 is the installation report which would show that the machine was installed at the residence of the complainant and the complainant was satisfied by seeing the demonstration that the machine was working properly. However, the complainant contended that the machine could not produce 6000 paper plates as assured by the opposite party. It is not mentioned in the complaint about the actual production which could be made using the machine.

7. An expert was appointed by the District Commission on the request of the complainant. The expert visited the place after giving notice to the opposite party. However, the opposite party was not present at the premises at the time of inspection by the expert. A copy of the panel of experts was also given to the opposite party. However, no objection was filed by the opposite party to the panel of experts. They also did not file any panel of experts even after granting three opportunities. In the said circumstances, the District Commission appointed one of the persons mentioned in the panel of experts submitted by the complainant as an expert to inspect the machine. The expert inspected the machine on 30.06.2016 and filed Exhibit C1 report. Exhibit C1 report would show that the machine could not be used to produce more than 1,000