Consumer rights panel orders company to refund consumer for selling faulty machine
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed an Erode-based company to refund ₹12.88 lakh to a consumer for the cost of a machine and for compensation due to deficient service.
The commission comprising president D.B. Binu and members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. issued the verdict on a petition filed by Sreejith G., managing partner, SG bags, Aluva, against T. Viswanatha Sivan, managing director, Sivan Industrial Engineering.
The complainant purchased a tie loop welding machine from the opposite party on September 15, 2020, for ₹6.78 lakh to meet the increased demand for facial masks during the pandemic. However, upon delivery, several essential parts of the machine, such as the auto feeder, covers, and spare parts, were missing.
The petitioner claimed that the seller had acknowledged the missing parts and attributed the issue to shipping errors while promising to procure them from China with technical assistance from Bengaluru. However, after two months, only the auto feeder was provided and installed. Subsequently, the machine produced defective masks, causing significant raw material wastage.
Repeated requests for repair or replacement via calls and emails were met with inadequate responses, citing the machine’s new model and lack of technical expertise. This negligence caused a monthly loss of one lakh masks, prevented the fulfilment of bulk orders from several hospitals, and resulted in a total loss of ₹6 lakh, the petitioner alleged.
The opposite party, on his part, contended that the complaint was baseless and aimed at avoiding payments for subsequent equipment purchases. They claimed that all the necessary components and support were provided. Their staff conducted regular maintenance visits and found no defects, and the complainant even placed a subsequent order for an additional ultra-sonic horn, for which payment was pending.
The opposite party attributed damages, if any, to the complainant’s unskilled employees and unauthorised modifications to the machine. They also denied allegations of negligent service and claimed that the complainant’s losses stemmed from unprofitable mask sales due to increased supply from other suppliers, rather than defects in their machine..
However, the expert commissioner appointed by the Commission reported strong evidence suggesting that the machine supplied by the opposite party was defective and failed to meet operational and safety standards. The welding process was inconsistent, leading to significant raw material wastage, and the machine posed serious safety hazards. These findings, the Commission said, indicated clear negligence and deficiency in service by the opposite party.
“The complainant’s genuine efforts to adapt to the increased demand for masks during the COVID-19 pandemic were thwarted by the faulty machine supplied by the opposite party. The financial strain and mental agony endured by the complainant and his family underscore the human element at the core of this case. Beyond the financial losses, the emotional distress caused by the opposite party’s actions must be acknowledged and rectified,” the Commission said.
Consequently, the Commission ordered the opposite party to refund the cost of machine (₹6.78 lakh), compensation of ₹6 lakh for production losses, raw material wastage, and mental anguish, and ₹10,000 towards the cost of litigation.
Read Comments
- Copy link
- Telegram
READ LATER
Remove
SEE ALL
PRINT
Related Topics
Kochi
/
consumer issue