A Kerala-based entrepreneur has secured a significant victory from a consumer commission, ending a three-year battle over a malfunctioning automated bottling machine. Sajitha E.G., proprietor of SKS Foods in Kanjikode, Palakkad, was awarded ₹75,000 in compensation and legal expenses, with the manufacturer also directed to replace the faulty equipment.
Automated Machine Fails to Deliver
Sajitha E.G. purchased an automatic four-head volumetric bottle-filling and cap-sealing machine, along with related accessories, from Ernakulam-based Abhilash Industries on June 27, 2023. The total cost of the equipment was ₹25,01,600, financed through a bank loan. The entrepreneur's aim was to boost production capacity and reduce labor costs, with the company promising the machine could fill 1,000 liters of concentrate per hour and cut five employee positions.
However, the machine allegedly failed to operate correctly from the outset. Sajitha reported issues such as inconsistent filling quantities, bottles overflowing, and improper cap sealing, rendering the equipment unusable. She attributed these problems to poor installation, faulty programming, and inadequate after-sales support from the manufacturer.
Consumer Commission Steps In
After repeated attempts to resolve the issues, Sajitha filed a complaint with the Palakkad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Abhilash Industries, in its defense, argued that the complaint was invalid as the machine was for commercial use and denied any manufacturing defects, claiming the issues stemmed from untrained staff.
To ascertain the root cause, the commission appointed an expert to inspect the machine. Testing revealed significant operational flaws: only three out of twelve bottles were filled correctly, six overflowed, and the capping system frequently stopped. The expert concluded that the problems were not due to manufacturing defects but rather poor installation, calibration issues, and insufficient after-sales service.
Ruling and Compensation
In its July 17 order, the commission, comprising President Vinay Menon V and members Vidya A and Krishnankutty N K, highlighted the severe impact on the entrepreneur. The machine, purchased with great expectations and financial assistance, had remained unused for over three-and-a-half years, causing considerable suffering to Sajitha's business.
While the commission refused a full refund of the machine's cost or bank interest due to the absence of a manufacturing defect, it directed Abhilash Industries to replace the machine with an identical one within 45 days. Furthermore, the company was ordered to pay ₹50,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and an additional ₹25,000 towards litigation costs, totaling ₹75,000. The ruling also stipulated a penalty of ₹1,000 per month if the company fails to comply within the given timeframe.
Implications for Business Owners
This case underscores a crucial point for small business owners: purchasing machinery for commercial use does not negate consumer rights. If equipment fails to perform as promised due to poor installation, calibration problems, or lack of proper after-sales support, entrepreneurs can seek redress through consumer commissions under the Consumer Protection Act. This provides a vital avenue for recourse against deficiencies in service and ensures that businesses are not left to suffer due to faulty equipment and inadequate support.