By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
The complaint in short is as follows: -
1. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a weighing machine from the opposite party on 02/07/2021. Usually, the weighing machine will be sold with one year validity and the cost of the product will be fixed considering the same. The complainant submitted that he has previous experience in purchasing weighing machine. The opposite party herein had orally assured the weighing machine has got one year sealing validity. The opposite party issued bill and the papers for sealing in a sealed cover. Thereafter six months while the complainant opened the sealed cover to approach the legal metrology, it was told that the validity of sealing was expired and the complainant was directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as fine. Hence the complainant demanding for rupees 4,500/- for the loss sustained to him along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and another sum of Rs. 10,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
2. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and the opposite party entered appearance and filed version.
3. The opposite party denied the entire allegations and averments in the complaint. The opposite party admitted that the complainant had purchased a weighing machine worth Rs.4,500/- on 02/07/2021. But the opposite party denied that the opposite party had collected cost for the instrument considering one year validity, the bill and seal was issued in a sealed cover, after 6 months of purchase the complainant opened the cover and found that the validity period was expired, Kerala legal metrology department fined Rs. 3,000/-, the complainant lost the value of the weighing machine and he sustained loss in his business etc.
4. The opposite party submitted that they are doing business of legal metrology instruments and as per the rules of Kerala legal metrology, the instruments should be in a sealed condition at the time of sales. It is not necessary that the validity of the instrument should be one year at the time of sales. All occasions the sealed instruments cannot be sold immediately obtaining the certificate of sealing. Usually invoice and certificates are issuing in a sealed cover at the time of delivery of the instrument. It is also usual to mention the date of renewal and the place of renewal over the sealed cover. The allegation that the complainant kept the certificate in a sealed cover for the period is against Kerala legal metrology enforcement rule 2012. The certificate is to be displayed where the business is doing. Moreover, it is the duty of the complainant to watch the camp adalath of legal metrology department and re verification of the instrument. Any sort of default from the complainant will be fined by the Kerala legal metrology department for which the opposite party cannot be made liable. The allegation of the complainant is baseless. The opposite party doing the business complying the directions of Kerala legal metrology department. The complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint.
5. The complainant and opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 and A2. Ext. A1 is copy of bill of supply dated 02/07/2021. Ext. A2 is copy of certificate of verification dated 17/02/2021. No documents filed on the side of opposite party.
6. Heard complainant and opposite party, perused affidavit, and documents.
7. The cases of the complainant is that he purchased a sealed weighing machine from the opposite party for Rs.4,500/- and the complainant was under the impression the verification and stamping is valid for one year from the date of purchase i.e. from 02/07/2021 onwards. The complainant submitted that he received the bill and certificate of verification in a sealed cover and he opened the same after six months and then it was found the period of validity had expired. The grievance of complainant is that he was asked to pay Rs.3,000/-as fine to the legal metrology department. It is alleged that the opposite party realized cost for the weighing machine under the impression it has got validity of one year certificate of verification.
8. The opposite party submitted that they issued bill and certificate of verification in a cover with specific endorsement over the cover regarding the next verification date and the place for the same. Opposite party submitted that it is the duty of the holder of the instrument to watch and report before the periodic adalath for renewal and it is also the duty of the owner of the instrument to exhibit the certificate in a conspicuous space in the premises where the weighing machine are used. So, the contention is that he could not notice the expiry of the verification period is baseless and so the complaint Is not maintainable.
9. Ext. A1 document shows that the complainant purchased the instrument on 02/07/2021 which is worth Rs.4,500/-. The document further reveals certificate of verification number as 2007/19 which is supported by document Ext. A2. But Exits A1 or A2 does not reveal the expense collected towards stamping of the instrument. Ext. A1 reveals the next stamping period as 2022 March. Hence it can be seen that the complainant is liable to renew the instrument after 7 months of the purchase of the instrument. The complainant submitted that he opened the sealed cover after 6 months of purchase and then he realized the validity of sealing expired and he was directed to pay fine of Rs.3000 before the legal metrology department. But there is no document to show that he remitted fine of Rs.3,000/- before the legal metrology or he lost his weighing machine worth Rs.4,500/-. The document Ext. A2 specially mentioned that the certificate shall be exhibited in conspicuous place in the premises where the instrument is used. So, the perusal of the affidavit and documents, we cannot find the contention of the complainant is merit oriented and with true facts. The submission of the opposite party is more reliable and the documents produced by complainant support the contention of the opposite party. Hence, we do not find merit in the contention of the complainant and the complaint stands dismissed.
Dated this 31st day of July, 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 and A2
Ext.A1: Copy of bill of supply dated 02/07/2021.
Ext.A2: Copy of certificate of verification dated 17/02/2021.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Mohandasan . K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
