| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM CACHAR :: SILCHAR Con. Case No. 10 of 2016 Sri Sambhu Chakraboarty, ……………………………………………. Complainant. V/S M/S Scientific Corporations, Hospital Road, Silchar, Assam. ………………………………………... Opp. Party. - Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha, Member, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Appeared :- Sahina Begum Barbhuiya, Advocate for the complainant. Sri Satish Ch. Das, Advocate for the O.P. Date of Evidence……………………….. 28-10-2016. 16-02-2017 Date of written argument……………… 01-06-2017 Date of oral argument………………….. 04-07-2017 Date of judgment………………………. 29-07-2017 JUDGMENT AND ORDER Sri Bishnu Dednath, - Sri Sambhu Chakrabarti purchased a B.P Machine (sphygmomanometer, Aneroid/Ultra) of pioneer Brand for Rs.630/- (Six Hundred & Thirty) only on 03-12-2015 from the O.P M/S Scientific corporations, Hospital Road, Silchar vide cash invoice No. SC/2015 dated 03-12-2015. But the complainant subsequently detected that the product inside the cartoon of Pioneer Brand was of other than the Pioneer Brand. Accordingly, he come back to the stop of the O.P for replacement but the proprietor of the O.P refused to replace on the plea that he did not sell the said product except a pioneer brand. Finding no alternative the complainant sent a written claim to the O.P on 12-12-2015 but the O.P refused to honour the claim vide letter of the O.P dated 17-12-2015.
- Hence, this case has been brought with relief of replacement of the product or in alternative return the value of the purchased item of Rs.630/- and compensation of Rs.5,000/- as well as cost of the proceeding of RS. 1,000/-
- The O.P on receiving the notice submitted W/S. In the W/S denying inter-alia the allegation stated that the complainant purchased one stethoscope and one sphygmomanometer of pioneer make in good condition but after a week came back with the B.P. apparatus claiming its replacement on the ground that the set was duplicate and defective one. The O.P on checking the set found that the so-called defective portion/part of the set was not of pioneer make which he sold to the complainant and as such expressed his inability to entertain the claim of the complainant. Accordingly, prayer to dismiss the case with cost.
- During hearing the complainant deposed on oath and exhibited the cash invoice vide Ext.2, the letter of request for replacement dated 12-12-2015, vide Ext.3. The O.P also examined its proprietor Sri Somnath Chakraborty as D.W to deny this claim of the complainant.
- Perused, the written argument of both sides’ counsels. Perused the evidence on record and heard oral argument of the complainant.
- In this case, the crux point is as whether the O.P sold a different make of B.P apparatus other than pioneer make to the complainant. The complainant deposed that at the time of purchasing the set, the O.P issued cash invoice for selling of pioneer make and the cartoon in which the product was kept was not in reality a pioneer make product. Of course, the cartoon of pioneer make was handed over to the complainant with product inside the cartoon of other make. The Ext.2 cash invoice reflected that the O.P sold the B.P apparatus of pioneer make, for which the O.P took a defense plea that he did not sell any B.P apparatus of other make except pioneer make.
- During oral argument the complainant showed the B.P apparatus to us. The B.P apparatus is appeared to be new one and not used for many occasion.
- Anyhow, in this case the complainant adduced oral evidence and in support exhibited the cash invoice to establish the allegation that the O.P sold a different make of B.P apparatus other than pioneer make but cash invoice issued for pioneer make and cartoon used of pioneer make. The O.P denied in support of oral evidence. The standard of proving in the Consumer Forum is not the proving the disputed fact beyond all reasonable doubt but only preponderance of probability.
- In the instance case, the Complainant produced the B.P apparatus with cash invoice and adduced oral evidence to establish the fact that the O.P sold a different make B.P apparatus and issue cash invoice for pioneer make and cartoon used of pioneer make, whereas the O.P denied. On careful perusal of cash invoice, it is revealed that batch name is written Pioneer but no batch number etc. are available. In that situation, we have to preponder as whether the fact stated by the complainant is impossible to execute by the O.P. From the evidence on record and perusal of written argument as well as other material, it is of opinion that it is not impossible on the part of the O.P to keep a B.P apparatus of different make inside the cartoon of pioneer make mistakenly and issued the cash invoice on reading the information and price printed on the cartoon.
- As such on the basis of evidence on record, we believed the deposition of the complainant and opined that the O.P sold a different make B.P apparatus instead of pioneer make.
- Hence, the O.P is directed to replace the B.P apparatus or in alternative refund Rs.630/-(Rupees Six hundred thirty) only as price of the B.P apparatus within 45 days from today along with compensation of Rs.1,000-/(Rupees One Thousand) only and cost of the proceeding of Rs.500/-(Rupees Five Hundred) only. If the O.P failed to pay the above award amount and in alternative replace the B.P apparatus within stipulated period. The total awarded amount will fetch interest @ 10% P.A. With the above, this case is disposed of on contest.
Given under the hand of the President and Members of this District Forum and seal of the Office of the District Forum on this the 29th day of July, 2017. | |
