Ernakulam District Commission Holds Paravoor Engineers Liable For Deficiency In Service For Selling Faulty Machine

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant runs a Chappathi-making unit named “Nani Food Products” and purchased a Chappathi-making machine from the Paravoor Engineering company, which claimed to be a major manufacturer of food preparation machines. The machine was bought for Rs.6,07,425 and came with a one-year replacement warranty. However, after installation, the complainant encountered numerous issues with the machine's functionality, such as sensor malfunctions, conveyor belt tears, heating coil problems, and fuse blowouts. Despite multiple attempts at repair by the engineering company, the machine remained unreliable and eventually stopped working altogether which resulted in severe financial losses and disruptions to the complainant's business, as they had taken a loan to purchase the machine. The engineering company failed to provide satisfactory support or replace the defective machine, prompting the complainant to file a police complaint under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. An inspection conducted by an assistant professor revealed that the machine's components did not meet established quality standards. The complainant seeks several remedies, including the replacement of the defective machine or a refund of the purchase amount, compensation of Rs.50,000 for financial losses and mental anguish caused by the defective machine, and deficient service.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

The engineering company denied the complainant's claims about the condition of the machine. They asserted that the complainant initially expressed satisfaction with the machinery's performance and did not report any issues. They disputed the complainant's allegations of sensor malfunctions, conveyor belt tears, heating coil problems, and fuse blowouts, stating that the machinery was of high quality and any issues were promptly addressed. It was also argued the complainant received proper training in operating and maintaining the machine. The engineering company alleged that the complainant had fabricated defects in the machinery to demand a refund or replacement falsely and had threatened legal action against them. While acknowledging a criminal case against one of their members, they emphasized that anticipatory bail was granted as there was no intent to deceive the complainant. They maintained their commitment to customer satisfaction, offering warranties and after-sale service for the machinery.

Observations by the Commission

The commission observed that there are two main concerns: the complaint about a faulty product and poor service, both of which are backed by documents and inspection reports provided by the complainant. The engineering company's failure to fix the issues or provide a replacement machine within the warranty period, despite several chances, indicates a lack of proper service. Moreover, the commission highlighted that the accusation of unfair trade practices is supported by the engineering company's failure to meet the quality standards advertised and agreed upon in the warranty terms during the purchase, as evidenced by the available proof.

The commission directed the engineering company to refund the Complainant the amount of Rs.6,07,425 paid during the purchase, along with Rs.40,000 for financial losses, mental suffering, and business loss, as well as Rs.10,000 towards the cost of the proceedings.

Case Title: Akhil R. Nair Vs. Paravoor Engineers

Case Number: C.C. No. 502/2017

Click Here To Read/Download Order