ORDER

1.       The present appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) in challenge to the Order dated 19.01.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in complaint No. 33 of 2013 whereby the complaint was partly allowed.

2.       Heard the learned counsel for the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the ‘dealer’ and ‘manufacturer’) and the learned counsel for the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’) and perused the record including the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 19.01.2017 and the memorandum of appeal.

3.       The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, a charitable trust, whose objective is to prepare ayurvedic medicine with assured quality and making them available to the public at large at reasonable price, purchased two equipments, namely, TLC MS Interface and ADC2 CAMAG, for a consideration of Rs. 56 lakhs. It is alleged that the technical experts of the manufacturer visited the complainant’s establishment on 12.09.2011 for installation. They analysed many samples and failed to get any result and they could not ru