Karnataka State Consumer Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Proman Infrastructure Over Alleged Defective Machinery
The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (Principal Bench), comprising Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda (President) and Mrs. Divyashree M (Member), has dismissed a consumer complaint filed against Proman Infrastructure Services Pvt. Ltd., holding that the complainant did not qualify as a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and had failed...
The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (Principal Bench), comprising Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda (President) and Mrs. Divyashree M (Member), has dismissed a consumer complaint filed against Proman Infrastructure Services Pvt. Ltd., holding that the complainant did not qualify as a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and had failed to establish any deficiency in service or manufacturing defect in the machinery supplied.
Brief Facts
The complainant, Mainuddin, purchased an M-Sand Machine—Proman Remco VSI 4060 with two 300 HP motors—from Proman Infrastructure Services Pvt. Ltd. for a consideration of ₹2 crore on 03 July 2020. The opposite party assured that the machine would produce 160–200 tonnes of sand per hour and operate continuously for 24 hours a day.
According to the complainant, although the machine initially met the assured production capacity, its performance gradually deteriorated, producing only 50 tonnes per hour and functioning for merely 5–6 hours per day. He alleged several defects, including cracks in the VSI cottage bearing, rotor, feed tube, and Rabal boss shaft, as well as changes in stator types. While these defects were attended to by the technicians of the opposite party, the machine allegedly failed to regain the assured production capacity.
The complainant stated that he informed the opposite party of these issues in January and March 2021. During servicing, the technicians observed that the VSI component was functioning at only 40–60% capacity, resulting in a reduction of the machine's operational hours from 24 hours to about 5 hours per day. Alleging deficiency in service, the complainant approached the State Commission seeking ₹3,94,20,000 with interest at 18% per annum, or in the alternative, replacement of the machine along with ₹1,94,20,000 as compensation.
Contentions of the Opposite Party
Proman Infrastructure Services Pvt. Ltd. opposed the complaint, contending that the machine was purchased for commercial purposes, thereby excluding the complainant from the definition of a “consumer” under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It was further submitted that the machine had been installed in a remote location with frequent voltage fluctuations and inadequate power supply, which adversely affected its performance.
The opposite party asserted that there was no manufacturing defect in the machine and that all service calls were promptly attended. The complainant was repeatedly advised to ensure stable electrical supply and to install a higher-capacity transformer, which he failed to do. It was also specifically instructed that the machine should not be operated without activating the metal detector.
Findings of the Commission
The State Commission observed that the complainant had invested a substantial amount in the machinery with the clear intention of earning income. Referring to the pleadings, the Commission noted that the complainant had claimed losses towards business profits of ₹1 crore, electricity charges, and salaries of 14 employees, which clearly established that the machine was purchased for commercial use.
In view of the exclusion under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Commission held that the complainant did not fall within the ambit of a “consumer”, rendering the complaint not maintainable.
On the issue of deficiency in service, the Commission found that the reduction in the machine's performance was attributable to frequent power fluctuations and insufficient electrical capacity at the installation site. It further observed that the complainant had failed to comply with the technical advice given by the opposite party regarding power requirements and safe operation of the machine. The service records also indicated that there was no inherent defect in the machinery.
Accordingly, the Commission concluded that no deficiency in service or manufacturing defect had been established against the opposite party and dismissed the complaint as devoid of merit.
Case Title: Mainuddin v. Proman Infrastructure Services Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: SC/29/CC/99/2021