By: Sri. Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
The grievance of the complainant is as follows:-
1) The complainant purchased an electronic weighing machine No. 1673/2018 manufactured by Sania Company on 20/07/2018 in order to use in his ration shop. It is stated in the complainant that the complainant had paid Rs.10,500/- and taken the machine after stamping for one year. The remittance for the weighing machine was done by way of instalments. The complainant remitted Rs.1,500/- as advance and collection agent of the opposite party used to contact the complainant in every week and collected instalments properly. Even after repayment of entire amount without any failure, the opposite party did not hand over document pertaining to stamping of the weighing machine. It is further stated in the complaint that the legal metrology office, Nilambur rejected the stamping weighing machine for the next year due to non production of OV certificate by the complainant. According to the complainant there was no knowledge about the production of OV certificate at the time of advancing the machine for stamping. The opposite party issued only invoice bill No.73 dated 20/07/2018 at the time of purchase of the weighing machine. According to the complainant, the opposite party behaved irresponsibly and told him that the document was already handed over. The attitude of the opposite party with regard the OV certificate caused suffering of mental agony to the complainant. The complainant further stated that as per his information availed from the business community; the opposite party withheld his OV certificate in order to get repaid the entire instalments of the price of weighing machine by the complainant. The complainant did not rule out the possibility of losing of the OV certificate from the opposite party also. It is stated in the complaint that due to negligence of the opposite party, the stamping of the weighing machine could not be done in right time causing damages to the ration shop business of the complainant. According to the complainant he should pay a huge amount as fine to the authority to get stamped the weighing machine again. It is also alleged that many other customers also suffered same mishaps due to the negligence of the opposite party. The complainant sent a notice to the opposite party narrating all incidents, but the opposite party replied irresponsibly. The opposite party acted negligently towards the complainant causing a huge financial loss. So the complainant claimed not less and amount of Rs.50,000/- from the opposite party to compensate the financial loss incurred due to the negligent act of the opposite party .
2) The complaint is admitted on file and issued notice to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and filed version.
3) In the version, it is submitted by the opposite party that the allegation raised in the complaint is false and baseless. According to the opposite party, the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed and contended that complaint is not maintainable. The opposite party admitted the purchase of weighing machine by the complainant as stated in the complaint. But it is contended that the authenticated copy of OV and purchase bill issued to the complainant. It is pointed out by the opposite party that the produced the bill along with complaint clearly mentioned next stamping date. According the opposite party, as per rule the OV certificate is to be exhibited at the place where weighing machine is used. Being a ration shop dealer the complainant is accustomed with the statute related to the procedure and use of weighing machine. The opposite party contended that the authorities are conducting inspections in the ration shop of the complainant and examine the weighing machine to see the same is used properly. It is further submitted by the opposite party that the complainant had oftenly produced weighing machine before the legal metrology department for verification and thereby availed certificates for many times. It is averred in the version that the opposite party came to know the laches of the complainant in availing certification of weighing machine. It is submitted by the opposite party that he had handed over the copy of verification certificate secured from the legal metrology department to the opposite party at the time of delivery of the weighing machine itself. According to the opposite party, it is an offence to use weighing machine without displaying the OV certificate in ration shop where officials check the weighing machine to ensure that the customers are getting right quantity of ration goods. The opposite party denied the statement of the complainant that repayment of the weighing machine price was made by way of instalments. The opposite party also denied the allegation of withheld of OV certificate until last payment of instrument of the price of the weighing machine. It is also contended by the opposite party that the complainant is doing ration shop business for the last many years. So it is incorrect to say that the complainant came to know the necessity of OV certificate for stamping of the weighing machine from the office of legal metrology. After securing OV certificate of the weighing machine from the concerned office, the opposite party handed over the same to the complainant along with other documents. So the story of withheld or loss of OV certificate is false and incorrect. According to the opposite party no complaint is raised against the opposite party so far from any of his customers. The complaint is concocted one and intended to tarnish the good reputation of the opposite party. It is alleged by the opposite party that the complainant is trying to make unlawful gain to get rid of his liability arising out of his own negligence in stamping of the weighing machine within proper time. So the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.
4) The complainant and the opposite party filed affidavit in lieu of the evidences. The document produced by the complainant is marked as Ext. A1 document. Ext. A1 document is the invoice bill No.73, dated 20/07/2018 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. The document produced by the opposite party is marked as Ext. B1 to Ext. B4 documents. Ext. B1 document is the certificate of registration issued from legal metrology department dated 19/07/2018. Ext. B2 document is the copy of application under Right to Information Act filed by one Nikhil P.K before the legal metrology department. Ext.B3 documents is the copy of statement issued from the office of legal metrology department. Ext. B4 document is the copy of certificate of verification dated 29/12/2014 issued from department of legal metrology.
5) Heard both sides in detail. Perused documents and affidavits. The points arisen for the consideration of the Commission are:-
1) Whether the opposite party committed deficiency in service towards the complainant.
2) Relief and cost.
6. Point No.1 and 2
The complainant alleged deficiency in service against the opposite party in this proceeding. The complainant averred that he was conducting a ration shop and purchased a weighing machine from the opposite party on 20/07/2018. The complainant produced Ext. A1 document to prove the purchase of weigh machine from the opposite party. Ext. A1 documents is the invoice bill issued by the opposite party to the complainant. As per Ext. A1 document it can be seen that the price of weighing machine is Rs.10,500/-. It is contended by the complainant that he purchased the weighing machine in instalment scheme. It is alleged by the complainant that even after repayment of entire amount without failure, the opposite party did not hand over authenticated copy of OV certificate and further alleged that the legal metrology department rejected his application to stamp the weighing machine for the next year due to non-production OV certificate. According to the complainant, the opposite party withheld the OV certificate without any valid reason. The opposite party admitted the purchase of weighing machine by the complainant. But at the same time the opposite party contended that he had handed over all document including the OV certificate to the complainant at the time of delivery of weighing machine. According to the opposite party, the complainant committed laches in availing the certificate to the weighing machine and to get rid of the liability arising out of his own negligence the complaint was filed before the commission. When considering the records available before the Commission, it can be finding that there is lack of evidences to support the contentions raised by the complainant. It is averred by the complainant that the payment for the weighing machine was done by way of instalments and collection agent of the opposite party used to come every week for collecting instalments from him. But the complainant failed to produce any evidence to show that payment of the price of weighing machine was done as stated in the complaint. The Commission also find that Ext. A1 document did not show any remarks of scheme of instalments and the opposite party also denied the same in his version and affidavit. So the Commission is holding the view that at the time of delivery of weighing machine entire documents had handed over to the complainant. According to the complainant, the opposite party wilfully withheld the OV certificate. At the same time, the complainant also not ruled out the possibility of losing of the OV certificate from the opposite party. So it can be find that the complainant do not maintained a specific allegation with regard to non availability of the OV certificate by the opposite party. According to the opposite party the complainant is conducting ration business for many years. So the complainant should be more aware of the fact that OV certificate is necessary for the certification of weighing machine by the legal metrology department. It is further averred by the opposite party that it is an offence to use weighing machine without displaying the OV certificate in ration shop where the officials check the weighing machine to ensure serving of proper quantity of ration goods to the customers. Unfortunately the complainant did not answered to the above mentioned contentions of the opposite party. The complainant was fully silent on the legal aspect of non display of OV certificate where the weighing machine is used. More over the inordinate delay in making a complaint against non serving of the legal document by opposite party created doubt over the case built up by the complainant. The complainant also failed to establish the quantum of damages sustained to his business as well as the duration of delay in availing the renewal of certificate of weighing machine. So evaluating the entire evidences availed in this case, the Commission finds that the complainant failed to establish his contention and thus complaint is dismissed.
Dated this 31st day of January, 2023.
Mohandasan K., President
Preethi Sivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1
Ext.A1: Invoice bill No.73, dated 20/07/2018 issued by the opposite party to the
complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B4
Ext.B1: Document is the certificate of registration issued from legal metrology
department dated 19/07/2018.
Ext.B2: Copy of application under Right to Information Act filed by one Nikhil
P.K before the legal metrology department.
Ext.B3: Copy of statement issued from the office of legal metrology department.
Ext.B4: Copy of certificate of verification dated 29/12/2014 issued from
department of legal metrology
Mohandasan K., President
Preethi Sivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
VPH
