4 min readNew DelhiJun 23, 2026 06:03 PM IST
First published on: Jun 23, 2026 at 06:03 PM IST
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
District Commission grants 2 lakh relief
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
Compensation reduced to one lakh
- The Kerala State Commission observed that the order passed by the district commission did not enter into any finding that the machine had any manufacturing defect, and cannot be said to be commensurate with the injury or loss sustained by the complainant.
- The commission noted that it could be safely held that the complainant could not use the said machine regularly and properly to earn her livelihood by way of self-employment
- It is borne out from the evidence that the complainant could not utilise the machine regularly to earn her livelihood, the commission said.
- Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the commission acknowledged the probable loss which the complainant had sustained, and also taking into account the mental agony suffered by the complainant.
- The commission opined that the compensation ordered by the district commission can be modified and reduced from Rs 2 lakh to Rs 1 lakh to meet the ends of justice.
Subsequent to repair, the same defect used to recur after 10 or 15 days; therefore, the complainant requested the opposite party to replace the machine. (AI-generated image) 
Share
