Gas leaks, faulty machinery: Bengaluru woman wins Rs 4.66 lakh from equipment supplier
The supplier appeared through counsel but filed its written version 45 days late. The commission declined to take the submission on record because it considered the filing belated.
A Bengaluru consumer commission has directed a machinery supplier to pay Rs 4.66 lakh towards repairs of a defective powder coating plant after a woman alleged that faulty equipment, gas leakage and ineffective filtration threatened her family's safety and livelihood. The Indian Express reported that the woman approached the consumer commission after the supplier allegedly failed to resolve multiple problems with the machinery despite repeated requests.
The complainant, who operated Aishwarya Coats, had purchased the equipment to establish a powder coating business intended to provide a livelihood for her family. However, she alleged that the machinery developed several defects after installation, eventually leaving the plant unable to function properly. According to The Indian Express, the Bengaluru I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising president Syed Anser Kaleem and members Jyothi N and Renukadevi Deshpande, ruled in her favour on September 30, holding the supplier responsible for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The commission observed that the supplier had a duty to resolve the problems after receiving payment from the complainant. Its failure to provide proper service, it said, amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The machinery included a gas-fired baking oven, two booths with cyclones, two powder coating guns and machines, and two mesh trolleys. The agreed price was Rs 12.39 lakh, inclusive of 18% GST.
The complainant submitted bank statements, UPI payment records and cash vouchers to support her claim that she had paid Rs 11.79 lakh through bank transfers and another Rs 3 lakh in cash, taking the total claimed payment to Rs 14.79 lakh. The order records these figures but does not explain the difference between the agreed price and the amount allegedly paid. After installation, the complainant alleged that the cyclone booth failed to absorb harmful powder particles effectively, allowing them to spread into the air and causing breathing difficulties for her and her family members.
She further claimed that structural beams began breaking apart and that the supplier used adhesive paste to fix the joints instead of rewelding them. The gas-fired baking oven allegedly developed leaks, raising concerns about a potential fire hazard. The complainant also said that spray guns, attachment collars and motor joints began coming apart, leaving the equipment inoperable. These were allegations made by the complainant.
The commission's order does not record separate technical findings confirming each of the reported defects. Independent repair estimate puts cost at Rs 4.66 lakh After attempts to get the supplier to address the problems allegedly failed, the complainant approached another firm to inspect the plant and estimate the cost of repairs and refurbishment. The firm issued an estimate dated February 13, 2025, placing the cost of restoring the equipment to working condition at Rs 4.66 lakh.
The complainant submitted the estimate alongside photographs of the machinery, payment records, the original agreement and a police complaint. The commission noted that the photographs showed deterioration of the installed materials and that the documents supported the payments claimed. The supplier appeared through counsel but filed its written version 45 days late. The commission declined to take the submission on record because it considered the filing belated.
In the absence of rebuttal evidence, the commission said it could not disbelieve the complainant's case. It concluded that the supplier had failed to resolve the reported defects despite receiving payment, amounting to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 66 lakh towards repairs within 30 days from the date of the order. If the amount is not paid within the stipulated period, it will carry interest at 6% per annum from September 30, 2026, until realisation.
The supplier was also ordered to pay Rs 2,000 towards the cost of proceedings. The order separately requires compliance within 30 days of receipt and submission of a compliance report within 45 days of receipt. The complainant had sought a refund of Rs 14.79 lakh, with 18% annual interest from August 17, 2024. She had also claimed Rs 10 lakh in damages and Rs 50,000 towards legal fees. However, the final order awarded the estimated repair cost and Rs 2,000 in proceedings costs.
It did not grant the separately claimed refund, damages or legal fees. Takeaway Consumers should preserve invoices, payment receipts and communications with suppliers, and document defects through photographs and written complaints. Where machinery involves gas, high temperatures or airborne particles, an independent technical inspection can help establish the nature and extent of safety or performance problems.
