Underlining that compensation must be commensurate with the injury or loss sustained, the Kerala Consumer Commission has reduced compensation from 2 to 1 lakh, awarded to a woman who bought a...
Underlining that compensation must be commensurate with the injury or loss sustained, the Kerala Consumer Commission has reduced compensation from 2 to 1 lakh, awarded to a woman who bought a coconut oil manufacturing machine for self-employment, but was unable to use it due to recurring defects.
President B Sudheendra Kumar observed that the woman could not utilise the machine regularly to earn her livelihood, and that there can be no doubt that service was deficient on the part of Ardav Machineries.
“We are satisfied that the compensation ordered by the District Commission cannot be said to be commensurate with the injury or loss sustained by the complainant,” the June 12 order said.
The complainant purchased a machine for the purpose of manufacturing coconut oil by way of self-employment on December 2, 2020, by spending an amount of Rs 2,73,700, and used the said machine properly for three months; thereafter, there was a problem with the machine.
The machine was repaired by Ardav Machineries (opposite party) 15 times within a period of 2 years, and the opposite party did not have any ISO Certificate or GST registration, which the complainant was not aware of.
Even after the repair, the same complaint used to recur after 10 or 15 days; therefore, the complainant requested the opposite party to replace the machine, but it did not happen because of which she has suffered loss due to the purchase of the above-said machine from the opposite party, and aggrieved by the same, filed the above complaint alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party
The district commission issued a notice to the opposite party, and it appeared before the commission in response to the notice; however, no version was filed by the opposite party, and in the absence of the submission, the evidence of the complainant was recorded.
The complainant’s submission was examined, and after evaluating the evidence, the district commission allowed the complaint in part and directed the opposite party to pay Rs 2 lakh as compensation towards the loss suffered by the complainant with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing the complaint.
Considering the submission made by the counsel for the appellant that since there was no report by the expert to prove the manufacturing defect, the order passed by the district commission cannot be sustained, the District Commission directed the opposite party to pay compensation and submitted that the computation of compensation has to be fair, reasonable and commensurate with the loss or injury
Somya Panwar works with the Legal Desk at The Indian Express, where she covers the various High Courts across the country and the Supreme Court of India. Her writing is driven by a deep interest in how law influences society, particularly in areas of gender, feminism, and women’s rights. She is especially drawn to stories that examine questions of equality, autonomy, and social justice through the lens of the courts. Her work aims to make complex legal developments accessible, contextual, and relevant to everyday readers, with a focus on explaining what court decisions mean beyond legal jargon and how they shape public life. Alongside reporting, she manages the social media presence for Indian Express Legal, where she designs and curates posts using her understanding of digital trends, audience behaviour, and visual communication. Combining legal insight with strategic content design, she works on building engagement and expanding the desk’s digital reach. Somya holds a B.A. LL.B and a Master’s degree in Journalism. Before moving fully into media, she gained experience in litigation and briefly worked in corporate, giving her reporting a strong foundation. ... Read More