KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.  800/2011

JUDGMENT DATED, 16.08.2012

PRESENT:-

SMT. A. RADHA                                :    MEMBER

APPELLANT

Annamma Earnest,

W/o Earnest, Proprietrix, Femina Food Industry,

U.C. College P.O., Aluva.

                              (Rep. by Adv. Sri.Roy Varghese)

                                     Vs

RESPONDENTS

1. Prince Engineering Co. 35/2132,

Rep. by its Managing Partner, Shaji,

Ravipuram Road, Kochi -16

2. Shaji, Managing Partner,

Prince Engineering Co. 35/2132,

Ravipuram Road, Kochi - 16

              (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Baby M. Perumpillil & S. Reghukumar)

JUDGMENT

SMT. A. RADHA   :  MEMBER

Dissatisfied by the order of dismissal passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in C.C. 451/05 the complainant /appellant came up in this appeal. 

2.  The complainant purchased a pappad manufacturing unit at a price of 5,54,000/- availing a loan from Canara Bank.  It is the case of the complainant that the machinery supplied was of inferior quality and defective.  The motor supplied was not as per the specification and supplied 3.75HP motor.  It is also alleged that the machines were not working properly and were not semi automatic and without any cooler.  It is also the allegation that the complainant was charged extra 40%  for the machine as against the prevailing market rate and huge bill was issued to him.  By delivering inferior quality and defective machine to the complainant the opposite party committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  The act of the opposite parties caused loss and damages and hence filed complaint before the Forum below praying for Rs. 5,54,000/- with 12% interest.  He also claimed damages for Rs. 50,000/- , cost of Rs.2,500/- and Rs.2,000/-per month claimed  for the rent of the room where the machine installed.

3.  The opposite party filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. It is also stated that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.  The opposite parties are not the manufacturer of the machine.  They are only the dealers.  It is also contended that the manufacturer is to be impleaded for proper adjudication of the case.  There is no deficiency in service or any negligence on the part of the opposite parties as they are only the dealers.  It is admitted that the appellant approached the opposite party for purchase of machinery and agreed as per the quotation for Rs. 5,54,000/- The opposite parties delivered a brand new pappad flour mixing machine with  two standard accessories and electrical motor, one brand new semi automatic pappadam making machine with electric motor and cutting die and thread Roll and one brand new pappadam  Dryer with electric motor  and  conveyer belt as per invoice No 052 dtd. 19.11.2004 and the receipts were also acknowledged by the husband of the complainant.   The bill amount was Rs.4,46,697.10 and thereafter the complainant placed orders for 2 numbers unit  text dol Motor starter etc which  were supplied as per invoice bill No. 306.  The opposite parties issued bill for the supplied  items only.  The machines were of good quality and brand new ones. The complainant placed the orders on piece meal and each and every order were complied in time.  No deficiency in service or wilful negligence can be attributed on the part of the opposite parties.  The opposite parties de