Commercial Purchase Of M-Sand Machine Excludes Buyer From ‘Consumer’ Definition; Karnataka State Consumer Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Proman Infrastructure
Pranav B Prem
The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (Principal Bench), has dismissed a consumer complaint filed against Proman Infrastructure Services Pvt. Ltd., holding that the complainant was not a “consumer” within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and had also failed to establish any deficiency in service or manufacturing defect in the machinery supplied. The complaint was decided by a Bench comprising Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda (President) and Mrs. Divyashree M (Member). The Commission concluded that the transaction was purely commercial in nature and that the evidence on record did not support the allegations of defective machinery or deficient after-sales service.
The complainant, Mainuddin, an agriculturist and businessman from Vijayapura district, had purchased an M-Sand machine, namely Proman Remco VSI 4060 with two 300 HP motors, from the opposite party for a total consideration of ₹2 crore. The machine was installed on his land on July 3, 2020. According to the complainant, the opposite party had assured that the machine would produce 160 to 200 tonnes of manufactured sand per hour and would operate continuously for 24 hours a day.
It was alleged that although the machine initially achieved the assured production capacity, its performance gradually declined. The complainant claimed that production dropped to about 50 tonnes per hour and that the machine functioned for only 5 to 6 hours per day instead of round-the-clock operation. He further alleged that several defects developed in the machine, including cracks in the VSI cottage bearing, rotor, feed tube, and Rabal boss shaft, as well as changes in stator types. While technicians of the opposite party attended to these issues, the complainant asserted that the machine never regained its assured capacity.
The complainant stated that these problems were brought to the notice of the opposite party in January and March 2021. During servicing, the technicians allegedly observed that the VSI component was functioning at only 40% to 60% capacity, leading to a drastic reduction in operational hours. Alleging deficiency in service, the complainant approached the State Commission seeking compensation of ₹3,94,20,000 with interest at 18% per annum or, alternatively, replacement of the machine along with compensation of ₹1,94,20,000.
The opposite party contested the complaint, primarily on the ground that the machine was purchased for commercial purposes and, therefore, the complainant was excluded from the definition of a “consumer” under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It was further contended that the machine was installed in a remote location where there was frequent voltage fluctuation and inadequate power supply, which adversely affected its performance. The opposite party maintained that there was no manufacturing defect and that all service calls were promptly attended. The complainant, it was submitted, was repeatedly advised to ensure stable electrical supply and to install a higher-capacity transformer, but failed to comply with these technical requirements. It was also pointed out that the complainant had been specifically instructed not to operate the machine without activating the metal detector.
On the issue of maintainability, the State Commission noted that the complainant himself had pleaded substantial business losses, including loss of profits of ₹1 crore, electricity expenses, and salaries paid to 14 employees. These averments, the Commission observed, clearly demonstrated that the machine had been purchased for commercial use with the intention of earning profit. In view of the express exclusion contained in Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Commission held that the complainant did not qualify as a “consumer”, rendering the complaint not maintainable under the Act.
Even on merits, the Commission found no deficiency in service. After examining the service reports and other documentary evidence, it observed that the machine’s reduced performance was attributable to unstable power supply and insufficient electrical capacity at the installation site. The records showed that the opposite party’s technicians had attended service calls and had specifically advised the complainant on proper operation and power requirements. The Commission also noted remarks in the service reports cautioning the complainant against operating the machine without activating the metal detector, and found no material to establish any inherent manufacturing defect in the machinery.
In light of these findings, the Commission held that the complainant had failed to establish both his status as a consumer and any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed as devoid of merit, and no relief was granted against Proman Infrastructure Services Pvt. Ltd.
Cause Title: Mainuddin v. Proman Infrastructure Services Pvt. Ltd.
Case No: SC/29/CC/99/2021
Coram: Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda (President) and Mrs. Divyashree M (Member)
