Journalism of Courage
‘Faulty’ boat engine leaves Kerala fisherman stranded at sea, company to pay Rs 57,000
The Kozhikode District Consumer Commission observed that the complainant had consistently established that the engine repeatedly malfunctioned despite several repair attempts by the opposite parties.
The district consumer commission was dealing with a plea of a fisherman. (AI-generated Image)
Holding the seller guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, a District Consumer Commission in Kozhikode allowed a disabled fisherman’s complaint against a marine engine seller after repeated engine failures disrupted his livelihood and ordered a refund of Rs 47,500 to the complainant.
A bench of president Priya S member V Balkrishnan also awarded Rs 10,000 as compensation for mental agony and hardship.
“The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get a refund of Rs 47,500 from the opposite parties, which is the price of the engine,” the commission said on July 27.
The order added that undoubtedly, the complainant was put to mental agony, hardship and inconvenience due to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice of the opposite parties, for which they are entitled to get compensated adequately.
Engine failed, seller denied refund
The complainant, a fisherman suffering from disability, purchased an engine for Rs 47,500 to be fitted to his boat. In February 2025, he bought a Japanese-made engine, which came with a two-year warranty. The company’s technicians installed the engine on his boat, and he used it for fishing for a few days. Thereafter, he did not venture into the sea for about a month due to Ramzan, and subsequently remained away from work during the Vishu festival.
After a brief period of use, the engine repeatedly failed while the complainant was at sea, forcing other fishermen to rescue him on at least three occasions. Each time, the opposite parties inspected the engine, attributed the problem to the fuel or oil, cleaned or repaired it, and reinstalled it, assuring the complainant that the issue had been resolved. However, it continued to malfunction despite multiple repair attempts and even the replacement of its carburettor.
The complainant alleged that despite repeated requests, the opposite parties refused to replace the defective engine or refund its price. He also claimed that they delayed issuing the purchase invoice and ultimately failed to rectify the defect, leaving him unable to earn his livelihood as a fisherman. He therefore approached the district consumer commission seeking a refund of Rs 47,500, compensation of Rs 1 lakh for the losses suffered, and other consequential reliefs.
Story continues below this ad
The opposite parties did not file a written version, did not contest the proceedings, and were proceeded against ex parte. However, during their interactions with the complainant before the litigation, the opposite parties maintained that there was no manufacturing defect in the engine.
They attributed the malfunction to the petrol and oil used, attempted to rectify the issue by cleaning the engine and later replacing the carburettor, but refused to replace the engine or refund its price.
Deficiency caused hardship, inconvenience: Order
The commission noted that the opposite parties remained ex parte and neither filed a written version nor produced any evidence to rebut the complainant’s case. As a result, the complainant’s oral testimony and documentary evidence, including the disability certificate, tax invoice, owner’s manual, photographs of the carburettor, and video recording of the engine, remained unchallenged.
It observed that the complainant had consistently established that the engine repeatedly malfunctioned despite several repair attempts by the opposite parties. The Commission found that the opposite parties failed to disprove the allegations or produce any contrary evidence to show that the engine was not defective or that they had adequately addressed the complaints.
Story continues below this ad
Holding that the complainant had proved his case, the commission concluded that the conduct of the opposite parties amounted to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act.
It observed that the complainant, whose livelihood depended on the engine, had suffered hardship, inconvenience, and mental agony due to the repeated failures of the product and the refusal to provide an effective remedy.
Takeaway
This ruling reinforces that sellers cannot evade liability by repeatedly attempting repairs while refusing replacement or refund for a persistently defective product. It highlights that unchallenged consumer evidence can establish a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, particularly where a defective product deprives a consumer of their livelihood and causes hardship.
Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Kerala: 1800-425-1550) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.
Story continues below this ad
Don’t miss out on these stories
© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Advertisement
Loading Recommendations...
Advertisement
Live Blog
Advertisement