KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL No. 592/10

JUDGMENT DATED : 11.10.11

PRESENT:

SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR                   :  MEMBER

M.M. Abdul Rahman,

General Merchant, Mannuthy P.O.,          :  APPELLANT

Thrissur.

(By Adv.  Tom Joseph)

Vs

1.    Scaletech Instruments Represented by

       Managing Partner, T.G. Vinod,

       XII – 282, 3^rd Floor, Hilal Building,             :  RESPONDENTS

       Chettiangadi Junction, Thrissur – 1.

2.    Citizen Enterprises Represented by

       Managing Director, Sanjay Sha,

       E.45, Sponj Industrial Complex,

       Dadra, Silvana Road,

       Near R.T.O. Post, Dadra.

JUDGMENT

SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR         :  MEMBER

It is aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint in OP 244/02 by the CDRF Thrissur that the complainant has come up in appeal calling for the interference of this commission as to the sustainability and legality of the order passed by the Forum below.

2.      The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he had purchased an electronic weighing machine on 21.11.2000 from the 1^st opposite party for a sum of Rs.15,000/- and that after 4 months the machine became defective. It is his case that though the defect was brought to the notice of the 1^st opposite party, no effective steps were taken by him. It was only informed that the defect was due to voltage problem and advised the complainant to install a stabilizer. The complainant alleged that inspite of installing the stabilizer, the weighing machine continued to be defective and inspite of his notice, the opposite parties refused to rectify the defects or paid the value of the machine. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 15,000/- being the value of the machine and compensation of  Rs. 10,000/- and costs.

3.      The opposite parties filed version, contending that the machine was purchased for not earning his lively hood by means of self employment and hence the complaint was not maintainable. It was further submitted that when the defects were intimated, they replied on 15.11.01 stating that the complainant did not get no objection certificate from the legal metrology department and hence they could not do anything to rectify the defects, if any.

4.      The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P3 on his side. The service inspector of the legal metrology department of Thrissur had been examined as RW1.

5.      The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant vehemently argued before us that the Forum below did not consider the entire aspects of the case in its correct perspective. It is his very case that the machine purchased by the complainant was defective from the 4^th month onwards and also that the opposite parties did not care to rectify the defects even after repeated requests. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the Forum below ought to have found that non registering of the weighing machine within 90 days is no reason to justify the failure to rectify the defect by the opposite parties. He has also submitted that the complainant has raised the defects of the machine within 1 year itself as can be seen from the version that the opposite party himself has stated that on getting a complaint, he has informed the complainant that the complainant has not registered the instrument with the legal metrology department within the stipulated time and also that the complainant has raised the complaint within the warranty period. The learned counsel has produced the letter dated:29.8.01 issued by the opposite parties to the Secretary, Ollukkara Panchayath Consumer Organisation, Thrissur showing that the opposite party received a complaint dated 21.8.01 from the organization regarding the defects of the weighing machine purchased by the complainant. Thus, he argued for the position that the Forum below ought to have allowed the complaint.

6.      On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant/ complainant and also on perusing the records, it is found that the complainant has purchased a weighing machine on 21.11.2000 as is evidenced from
Ext. P2. It is also seen that in Ext.P1 an official of the legal metrology department has endorsed that the machine was defective which was brought to him for registration. It is also seen that he has rejected the registration as the weighing machine displayed fluctuation even at no load.

7.      The learned counsel submitted before us that the 1^st opposite party himself has admitted that he had received a letter from the complainant sent through the consumer organization and the reply was sent on 29.8.01 to the said organization. The Forum below has dismissed the complaint finding that the complainant had not taken any action within the warranty period. It is not disputed that the warranty period is not 1 year. It is to be found that the machine was purchased on 21.11.2000 and the intimation showing the defects of the machine was sent to the opposite party on 21.8.01.  The Forum has also found that the instrument was not registered within the stipulated period of 90 days. It is to be found that it was the responsibility of the complainant to register the instrument within the period and the failure to do so will not be a ruse to the opposite party to escape from the liability of selling a defective weighing machine. Admittedly, the machine was defective as can be seen from Ext. P1. To support this RW1 has deposited thus;

“\DT5a [/BbTf !EHa9BUO \8BaAT<^ [*TtWm "LM H^@EUdW*BUDc&”

He has also stated that the machine was defective even in the no load position. Taking all these into consideration, it is found that the opposite party had supplied a defective machine to the complainant.

8.      The complainant has sought for refund of the purchase value of the weighing machine along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of the proceedings. We find that the opposite parties had supplied a defective machine and the complaint is entitled to get back the amount with interest at 9% per annum from the date of purchase till the date of payment. As interest is ordered there is no order as to compensation. However, the complainant is entitled to get Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the proceedings throughout.

The appeal is disposed of as above.

The office is directed to return the LCR to the Forum below along with a copy of this order urgently.

S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR       :  MEMBER

DA