A District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kozhikode has ordered a marine equipment vendor to refund Rs 47,500 to a disabled fisherman and pay Rs 10,000 in compensation after a defective boat engine repeatedly broke down at sea and threatened his livelihood.
The ruling, issued on July 27 by a bench comprising Commission President Priya S. and Member V. Balakrishnan, found the seller guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act. The commission concluded that the persistent product failures caused significant mental agony and hardship to the boat owner, entitling him to full reimbursement of the purchase price along with financial damages.
Repeated Engine Failures At Sea
The complainant bought the Japanese-manufactured marine engine for Rs 47,500 in February 2025, which came with a two-year warranty and was installed by company technicians. After using the boat for a few days, his fishing trips were temporarily paused for the observance of Ramzan and the Vishu festival.
When operations resumed, the engine experienced recurring malfunctions while adrift at sea. Fellow fishermen had to rescue the complainant on at least three separate occasions. Although company technicians inspected the machinery, attributed the breakdowns to contaminated fuel or oil, performed repairs, and replaced the carburettor, the engine continued to fail.
Uncontested Proceedings And Evidence
The vendor repeatedly refused requests to replace the unit or issue a refund, maintaining that no manufacturing defect existed while also delaying the issuance of the purchase invoice. Left unable to carry out his work, the fisherman filed a complaint seeking a full refund, compensation of Rs 1 lakh for losses, and additional legal relief.
The opposite parties failed to file a written response or participate in the tribunal proceedings, leading the commission to hear the case ex parte. The panel based its decision on the unchallenged material presented by the complainant, including his disability certificate, tax invoice, owner’s manual, photographs of the carburettor, video footage of the engine, and sworn oral testimony.
In its judgment, the commission noted that the vendor offered no evidence to refute the claims or prove that the defect had been rectified. The panel emphasized that businesses cannot escape liability by conducting repeated repairs while refusing replacement or refunds for persistently failing products that strip consumers of their livelihood.
