December 20, 2025 : 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 buyer of an M-Sand manufacturing machine was not a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and had failed to prove any deficiency in service or manufacturing defect.
The complaint was decided by a Bench comprising Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda, President, and Mrs. Divvyashree M, Member. The Commission concluded that the transaction was purely commercial in nature and therefore outside the scope of consumer jurisdiction.
Background of the dispute
The complainant, Mainuddin, an agriculturist and businessman from Vijayapura district, had purchased an M-Sand machine, Proman Remco VSI 4060 with two 300 HP motors, from Proman Infrastructure Services Pvt. Ltd. for a consideration of ₹2 crore. The machine was installed on his land on 3 July 2020.
According to the complaint, the opposite party had assured that the machine would produce 160 to 200 tonnes of manufactured sand per hour and operate continuously for 24 hours. While the machine initially achieved the stated capacity, the complainant alleged that output later dropped to around 50 tonnes per hour and daily operation reduced to five to six hours. He also alleged multiple defects in components such as the VSI cottage bearing, rotor, feed tube, and shaft, despite repeated repairs by the company’s technicians.
Claiming heavy financial losses, including loss of profits, electricity expenses, and employee salaries, the complainant approached the State Commission seeking compensation of ₹3.94 crore with interest or, in the alternative, replacement of the machine along with compensation.
Defence by the manufacturer
Proman Infrastructure Services Pvt. Ltd. opposed the complaint, arguing that the machine was purchased for commercial use and therefore the complainant was excluded from the definition of “consumer” under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The company further contended that the machine was installed in a remote location with frequent voltage fluctuations and inadequate power supply, which adversely affected performance.
It was also submitted that service calls were attended promptly, there was no manufacturing defect, and the complainant was repeatedly advised to ensure stable electricity supply, install a higher-capacity transformer, and operate the machine strictly in accordance with technical guidelines, including activation of the metal detector.
Findings of the Commission
On the question of maintainability, the Commission noted that the complainant himself had pleaded substantial business losses, including loss of profits of ₹1 crore and expenses towards electricity and salaries of 14 employees. These averments clearly showed that the machine was purchased for commercial purposes with an intention to earn profit.
In view of the express exclusion under 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.
Even on merits, the Commission found no deficiency in service. After examining service reports and documentary evidence, it held that reduced performance was attributable to unstable power supply and inadequate electrical infrastructure at the installation site. The records showed that technicians had attended service calls and issued specific instructions regarding proper operation of the machine. No material was found to establish any inherent manufacturing defect. Accordingly, the Commission dismissed the complaint as devoid of merit and granted no relief to the complainant.
Case details
Cause Title: Mainuddin v. Proman Infrastructure Services Pvt. Ltd.
Case No: SC/29/CC/99/2021
Decision Date: 20 December 2025
