SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. This complaint is filed for refund of the value of the goods purchased, compensation and costs. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The 1st opp.party is the authorized dealer of the 2nd opp.party, who is the manufacturer of electronic weighing machine by trade name Swift Class III with serial No.22105638. On 31.10.2002 the complainant purchased a electronic weighing machine from the first opp.party for Rs.13,450/- The weighing machine had a warranty of one year. The machine after purchase did not function properly. Therefore the matter was intimated to the first opp.party. Since the complainant purchased the machine for his on use and the same was not working properly, he had kept the same idle . The machine had manufacturing defect. Despite requests the opp.party did not turn up to repair the machine or replace the same. The conduct of the opp.party is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint The opp.parties filed a joint version contending interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The allegation that the weighing machine purchased by the complainant did not function properly and the same was a defective one is false and hence denied. The complainant has purchased the weighing machine having the trade name Swift class II with Sl.No.22105638 The weighing machine purchased by the complainant was verified and stamped by the Legal Metrology Inspector on 6.12.2003 , 3.12.2005 etc. and issued certificate to the effect that the same is working accurately and properly and the same has no defects. The certification of Legal Metrology Department itself would show that it has no manufacturing defect and it worked for about 6 years from the date of purchase after installation of the same in the premises of the complainant. After having worked the machine for such a long period the complainant could not legally claim the replacement of the machine or compensation The machine purchased by the complainant was an accurate one which is even now working properly. The complainant had never brought the machine to this opp.party’s service centre or lodged any complaint for rectification of any defect. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Hence the opp.parties prays to dismiss the complaint with their costs. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext.P1 and P2 are marked. For the opp.parties DW.1 and 2 are examined. Ext. D1 and D2 are marked This case was originally disposed on 6..3.2004 and the opp.party filed appeal No.641/04 before the State Commission and the State commission remanded the case for fresh disposal. After remand, DW.1 wasexamined and Ext. D1 and D2 marked. Points : As a matter of fact there is no dispute that the complainant purchased a weighing machine swift class III with Sl.No.22105638 from the opp.party as per Ext.P1 and that the weighing machine had a warranty period of one year. The case of the complainant is that one month after purchase of the weighing machine it became faulty and despite several requests the opp.party did not turn up to repair the same or to replace it with a new one which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It is the further case of the complainant that since the opp.parties did not turn up he engaged one Mechanic Biju and got the machine repaired spending Rs.4500/- As against the case of the complainant the case of the opp.party is one of total denial. According to the opp.parties the machine sold to the complainant had no defect at all and the same was got tested by the Legal Metrology Department who issued necessary certificate [Ext.D1] and the complainant was satisfied of the performance of the machine before purchase. The definite contention of the opp.party is that the complainant never approached them with any request for repair or replacement till date. Though the complainant would contend that he requested several times to the opp.party to repair the weighing machine not even a scrap of paper is produced to establish that contention. No copy of any letter alleged to have been send to the opp.party or the postal receipt for having issued any notice to the opp.parties is produced or any oral evidence adduced. Similarly with regard to the repairs effected through one Biju also there is no material worth believable. The said Biju was not examined or any receipt for having paid Rs.4500/- as repair charges produced or proved. It is worth pointing out in this context that there is no pleading in the complaint regarding the engagement of Biju or payment of repair charges of Rs.4500/-. In the chief affidavit filed on 26.2.2004 also there is no mention or engaging Biju for repairing the weighing machine and payment of Rs.4500/- as repair charges. From the evidence now before us we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant failed to prove that the weighing machine developed any fault and that the opp.parties failed to repair the same despite his requests. There is also force in the contention that the averment regarding engagement of Biju for repair and payment of repair charges are subsequent stories which is obvious from the absence of pleadings in the complaint and affidavit dated 26.2.2004 . It is well settled that a fact which is not pleaded cannot be proved by any amount of evidence. In this case the complainant has not even made any attempt to prove his contention. Ext. D2 shows that the disputed weighing machine has been duly verified and stamped by the competent authority on 6.12.2003 . The complainant would contend that the number of the weighing machine is corrected in Ext. D2 and not properly attested and so it may relate to some other machine. That argument cannot be accepted. There is no difference in the name and address of the owner and the model in Ext. D2. The complainant has no case that he has another weighing machine of the same model and Ext. D2 relates to the same. So it can safely be concluded that Ext. D2 relates to the disputed weighing machine which would show that the complaint is using the very same weighing machine even after the expiry of the warranty period. It is also pertinent to note that in the chief affidavit the complainant has stated that he repaired the machine engaging Biju on 1.1.2.2003 which is after the expiry of the warranty period of one year and even assuming that it is true, no deficiency in service can be attributed to the opp.parties. For all that has been discussed above we find that there is no deficiency in service as alleged. Points found accordingly. In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009. I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Rajendra Prasad List of documents for the complainant P1. – Invoice P2. – Guarantee card. List of witnesses for the opp.parties DW.1. – P. Jayachandran DW.2. –Ravi Sankar List of documents for the opp.parties D1. – Verification certificate D2. – Certificate issued on6.12.2003 | 
