By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President The case of complainant is that the complainant is a goldsmith by profession and he had purchased a Citizen Electronic Weighing Machine from the respondent on 29/1/2003 and paid Rs.21,400/- as the cost of the machine. It had one year warranty. The machine became defective from 2004 June onwards and it was taken by the respondent for repair and it was not returned back so far. When weighing machine was taken for repair the respondent had been given another weighing machine for temporary use but it was not fit for the use of complainant. The complainant requested to return the weighing machine back but it was not done. So a lawyer notice was issued but no remedy so far. Hence the complaint. 2. In the counter the respondent denied the entire averments in the complaint. It is contended that this respondent is not the producer of the said weighing machine. This respondent is only a dealer and so this respondent is not only liable for the defects. The manufacturing company is responsible for the entire things and without the consent of the company the respondent has no authority to open the machine and inspect. As per the terms of the warranty the manufacturing defect will be applicable only to the defects to the machine at the time of use only. The complaints to the machine were may be the defects in the use of the machine. The complaint has the defect of misjoinder of necessary party. Hence dismiss the complaint. 3. Points for consideration are : 1) Whether there was any deficiency in service from the respondent ? 2) If so relief and costs ? 4. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P6 only. No other evidence adduced. 5. Points: It is the case of complainant that he had purchased one citizen electronic weighing machine from the respondent on 29/1/2003 and during the one year warranty period the machine became defective from 2004 June onwards. It is further stated that the machine was taken by respondent and it was not returned back so far. So this complaint is filed for the grievance. The respondent filed counter by stating that he is only a dealer and if the machine has got manufacturing defects the manufacturer will be responsible. It is also contended that the complaint has the defect of misjoinder of necessary parties. 6. The complainant produced Exhibits P1 to P6 documents to substantiate his case. Exhibit P1 is the invoice produced by the complainant and would show that the total price as Rs.17,000/-. He also produced Exhibit P3 and according to him those are the receipts issued when payments were made towards the cost of the weighing machine. But he is no case that he has purchased the machine by instalment scheme. As per Exhibit P1 the cost will be come to Rs.17,000/- only. In Exhibit P3 receipt it can be seen that balance as Rs.11,400/-. The Exhibit P3 receipts are vague and it can not be taken into consideration even though undisputed by the respondent. 7. It is the definite case of complainant that the machine became defective and the respondent had taken it for repair. According to him it was not returned so far. The respondent has no case that he did not take away the machine. The complainant produced copy of lawyer notice sent by him and has marked as Exhibit P4. In the lawyer notice also the complainant stated about the non return of the machine which was taken for repair. Exhibit P6 would show the acceptance of the lawyer notice by respondent and no reply is seen sent. There is no denial on the part of respondent with regard to the non return of the machine. The defects alleged also not disputed by respondent. The only contention taken by him is that the manufacturer will be liable for the manufacturing defect and the manufacturer is to be impleaded. It is true that the nature of defect has not brought before the Forum. So we can not say whether the defects are manufacturing or not. What ever may be the defects it was the duty of respondent to return the machine. It has not done. It is a grave deficiency in service on the part of respondent. So the respondent is liable to return the cost of the machine. The complainant is entitled to get only the Exhibit P1 amount. 8. Another contention of the respondent is misjoinder of necessary parties. According to respondent the manufacturer is not impleaded as a party. So he is taken this contention as misjoinder of necessary parties. He would say that the complaint has the defect of non joinder of necessary parties for the absence of manufacturer in the party array. What ever may be the contention raised by the respondent it is no doubt that the respondent is liable to return the machine taken by him for repair. He did not specifically deny this aspect. He failed to adduce any evidence in support of his claim. So he is liable to pay the Exhibit P1 amount along with compensation. 9. In the result the complaint stands allowed and the respondent is directed to return the Exhibit P1 amount and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation along with costs Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her corrected be me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 3rd day of August 2010.
| | [HONORABLE Rajani P.S.] Member[HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Sasidharan M.S] Member | | 
