SRI.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER..

This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

          The case of complainant is that the weighing scale purchased by him from the 1^st opp.party which was manufactured by the 2^nd opp.party found defective within the warranty period and even though the matter was informed the 1^st opp.party has not turned up or rectified the defects.   The act of opp.party amounts to deficiency in service and it resulted in financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed seeking compensation. 

The case of opp.party is that the complainant has not given any intimation about the defect in the  weighing scale.  There is no manufacturing defect.   The defect was occurred because of the improper use of the complainant.   There is no deficiency in service from the part of opp.party.   The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Even though sufficient opportunity  has been given the 2^nd opp.party remained absent.  Hence set exparte.  The 1^st opp.party filed version.   The complainant filed affidavit.  PW.1 examined.   Exts. P1 and P2 are marked.

From the side of opp.party DW.1 examined.  No documentary evidence produced by 1^st opp.party.

Points that would arise for consideration are:

1.     Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opp.party

2.     Compensation and cost.

Points 1 and 2

Admittedly the weighing scale was purchased by the complainant on 14.11.2006 from the 1^st opp.party, which was manufactured by the 2^nd opp.party.  One year warranty offered by the opp.parties.

          The complainants case is that the weighing scale found defective on 4.2.2007 and the matter was intimated to the 1^st opp.party through telephone.   The 1^st opp.party has given assurance that he will sent his men to verify and rectify the defect in the weighing scale.  But till 20.2.2007 no   men came there to detect and cure the defect.  On  direct enquiry, the complainant came to know that there is no such institution namely’  Star Electronics in that address.   The complainant again tried to  contact the 1^st opp.party through telephone, the call was disconnected purposefully by the 1^st opp.party.

          The 1^st opp.party’s contention is that the defect was not intimated to him.  If it was intimated in time steps might have been taken by him to rectify the defects.

          The 1^st opp.party has admitted in his deposition that he is in practice of supplying machine to shops as per order.   The complainant has also stated that weighing machine was supplied in his shop by the 1^st opp.party .   Even though 1^st opp.party claiming that he is conducting shop till now the Reg. Notice sent by the Forum in that address also returned will endorsement “not known”.  The 1^st opp.party has  stated that if the complainant had intimated him timely he might have taken steps for rectification or for other remedies.  We are of   that it is view  not a bonafide statement because even after he has got knowledge that the complainant had lodged a complaint alleging defect in the weighing scale within the warranty period,  he had not taken any steps for rectification or other remedies or not even tried for a settlement.

          The weighing scale was examined by an expert and the expert  after examining the scale reported that weighing scale is defective and found that the balance does not give a stable reading during weighing and it cannot be put into use.  The objection filed by the 1^st opp.party is not sustainable.

          The 1^st opp.party has stated that if the weighing scale is in full charge it will  function for 8  hours.  The non functioning of scale may be because of the improper use.  The battery became down as  the machine  was not regularly   switched on to  the current.  The details of functioning is clearly explined to the complainant and he has got a very good knowledge about it.

          Here, the1st opp.party himself  is admitting that the complainant has got a very good knowledge about the functioning.   The reason pointed out by the 1^st opp.party is only an assumption.   There is no evidence to prove the improper use of the same  by the  complainant as alleged by the 1^st opp.party.

          The allegation of the complainant is that the 1^st opp.party had received price Rs.6400/- but has issued receipt only for Rs.4500/-  Ext.P1 shows that the1st opp.party received Rs.4500/-only  as the price of weighing machine.   No other evidence produced by the complainant to prove the receipt of Rs.6000/-

For all that has been discussed above we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opp.party.   The point found accordingly.

In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opp.parties to refund the price of weighing machine Rs.4500/- and to pay compensation of Rs.2000/- and cost Rs.1000/- 

The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order.

            Dated this the   30^th      day of April, 2010.

                                                                                   .

I N D E X

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW.1. – Rajasekharan Pillai

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Bill

P2. – Warranty card

List of witnesses for the opp.party

DW.1 –Abdul Hameed

List of documents for the opp.party :Nil