O R D E R R.Vijayakumar, Member. This is a complaint filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act. (2) Briefly stated the fact of the case is that the complainant had purchased Weigh Bridge after a detailed discussion with opposite parties. The weigh bridge was erected by opposite parties is 1994 with digitizer L 105 while discussion the opposite party offered spot service after sale service and spare equipment without any break of the normal functioning of the machine. Machine developed certain complaints and it was rectified by the opposite parties within 24 hour. The working of the weigh bridge became inoperative on 30.11.07. The complainant informed the matter to the opposite parties at the same day and the inspection wing inspected the machine on the very next day itself. They had reported that the non-functioning was due to the damage of load cell and digitizer L 105 and advised to replace the digitizer by latest one, L 115. The opposite party told that the L 115 digitizer is not available in their Cochin office and the item has to being from Hariyana and Fareedabad Factory. As per quotation of opposite party, the complainant had given order for issuance of new model digitizer by E-mail. On 04.12.07 the complainant had requested to the opposite party that the item shall (3) be erected within 4 days instead of 3 weeks time required by the opposite party for delivery. The complainant paid cheque for Rs.59689/- on 04.12.07 as the price of digitizer and Rs.26405/- as installation charges on 18.12.07. On 15.12.07 the opposite party informed the arrival of digitizer and on 19.12.07 the arrival of load cell. On 20.12.07 those equipments were erected and started function only on 21.12.07. The opposite party violated the assurances and after sale service offered. They have issued written assurance that “ Avery India fully equipped with technically qualified service personal, transport facilities, test weight and stocked with necessary working spares. Due to the long delay in supply of equipments and negligence from opposite parties the complainant had sustained loss of 19 days works. The complainant had lost his reputation and goodwill of his establishment and it caused much mental agony to the complainant. Even though the opposite parties had erected more than 50 weigh machine in different parts of Kerala, the (4) opposite parties had not stocked even a single piece of load cell and digitizer in their office at Kochi. The opposite party is liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complaint. The complainant sent advocate notice and it was replied narrating false facts. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting Rs.2,25000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as cost of proceedings. The case of opposite party is that the opposite party had not given any blancket assurance that they will rectify all the defects or repair or replacement within 24 hours as alleged in the complaint. All spares of all machinery are not available at all places at all times. Supply of spares of depends upon the availability of spares in the market. The averment that on 04.12.07 the complainant requested to the opposite party stating that the load cell and digitizer shall be erected within 4 days instead of 3 weeks is also absolutely false. In the quotation it is clearly stated that the delivery will be at site within 4-5 weeks. The item has to come from the (5) state of Hariyana from the opposite party’s Factory situated at Bullabgarh. The complainant is well aware of these aspects. Actually opposite parties had occurred no delay in the supply of load cell and digitizer. The complainant had not raised any objection against the quotation of opposite party and he had accepted it without any protest. The statement that the complainant had paid cheque for Rs.26405/- on 18.12.07 to the opposite party as installation charge is not correct. The amount of Rs.26405/- has given to the opposite party on 12.12.07 is based on the Annual Maintenance Contract . AMC should not compared with the replacement or repair of any defective parts. Spares replaced on AMC will not be given free of cost. But free of service charges. In the instant case also service charges were not levied. The opposite parties has acted well within the terms and conditions of the quotation and at the earliest opportunity the load cell and digitizer was supplied. It was replaced and the weigh bridge was made functional. There is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite party. The complainant has not suffered any monitory loss. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost. (6) The complainant filed affidavit. PW1 examined. Exts.P1 to P7 marked. From the side of opposite parties DW1 examined. Ext.D1 and Ext.P8 marked. The points that would arise for consideration are : (1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? (2) Compensation and cost. Points (1) and (2) Admittedly the weigh bridge was erected by the opposite party in the year 1994 and the AMC was continued up to 2005. As the damage was reported by the complainant on 30.11.07 the service personals of opposite party inspected the weigh bridge and advised to replace the load cell and digitizer. A quotation was given by the (7) opposite party in the terms and conditions, it was noted that “ At site within 4-5 weeks” also admitted. The main contention of the complainant is that the quotation was accepted by the complainant through e-mail and in that e-mail the complainant had requested to the opposite party that the items shall be erected within 4 days. The complainant had approved and confirmed the quotation through that e-mail Ext.P3, dtd:03.12.07. Opposite party accepted the quotation and received cheque for Rs.59689/- as the price of new load cell and digitizer. As the quotation was accepted as per the e-mail, ie; Ext.P3 opposite pary is bound to erect the part within 4 days. The opposite parties contented that it is clearly stated in the quotation that the delivery will be at site within 4-5 weeks. The items has to be come from the State of Hariyana. The supply of spares depends upon the availability of spares in the market. (8) The Learned Counsel for complainant has argued that opposite party confirmed the quotation by Ext.P3 dtd:03.12.07. The said fact was stated in Ext.P6, Advocate notice. It was not disputed in Ext.P7, the reply notice. In version also it is stated that “ the quotation given by opposite party was accepted by the complainant and it was confirmed by e-mail as stated in Para 4 of the complaint”. The Learned Counsel for opposite party argued that the complainant who was examined as PW1 admitted in cross examination that he had signed and accepted the quotation. The original quotation signed by the complainant has been produced by opposite party and the same is marked as Ext.D1. The opposite party need not heed to the request of the complainant because at the time of accepting D1, the complainant is well aware of the fact that the delivery of items will be within 4-5 weeks. Even if the complainant made a demand for the said spare parts within 4 days by way of e-mail no commitment was given by opposite parties. (9) The complainant had admitted in the complaint itself that the opposite party told that the L 115 digitizer is not available in their Cochin office and the item has to being from Hariyana Faridabad Factory. While cross examination also he had admitted that the delivery time noted in the quotation also is “between 4-5 weeks” and also had admitted that he had signed the quotation without commencing any change. The load cell and digitizer erected within the stipulated time. From these admissions it is obvious that the complainant is well aware of the fact that the delivery will be within 4-5 weeks and by signing in the quotation he has convinced and accepted all the conditions specified in that quotation. The complainant had stated in the complaint that on 04.12.2007 he had requested to the opposite party stating that the spare parts shall be erected within 4 days instead of 3 weeks they (10) have required for delivery. On 04.12.07 the complainant paid cheque for the same. As per Ext.P4 it is true that the payment was made through cheque on 04.12.07. The evidence to prove request made by the complainant is the e-mail. It was dated: 03.12.07. The opposite party contented that the e-mail produced by the complainant is fabricated. DW1 has admitted that an e-mail was accepted by opposite party. The counsel for complainant put the question that can he produce the copy of e-mail sent by the complainant. He answered that it is not available. For further question that whether Ext.P3 is the e-mail correspondence given to the opposite party by the complainant accepting the quotation? DW1 has answered that he is seeing Ext.P3 for the first time. While cross examination the complainant deposed that he had sent e-mail from a cyber caf The name of the Cafe was not known to him. He had not demanded receipt for payment in that cyber caf (11) and further he has stated that the e-mail was not sent from his own system. The complainant has not produced anything to prove the authenticity of Ext.P3. The complainant has stated in the complaint that he has paid Rs.26405/- towards installation charge. The complainant’s advocate stated in the Advocate notice that “ As installation charge, my client paid cheque for Rs.26405/- on 08.12.”. The annual maintenance contract was continued only up to 2000. The opposite party demanded for AMC and the supply of parts and erection of spare parts were based only upon AMC. Ext.P8 shows that the document is related to the payment of money as per AMC Rs.26405/-.That amount was paid to the opposite party as the charges of Annual maintenance and not paid as erection charges as the complainant had stated in the complaint and affidavit. (12) It is clear that the complainant was well aware of the fact that it will take 4-5 weeks for the delivery of the load cell and digitizer. The complainant had paid the price of parts on 03.12.07. He had paid the AMC charges only on 08.12.07, five days after the payment for space parts was commenced. If he had expected earlier supply of parts and if he was in an impression that erection will done within 3-4 days he may have paid the AMC charges earlier. The complainant alleged that the opposite party has not taken immediate steps for the supply of spare parts from the company after the acceptance of quotation. In support of this the learned counsel argued that the information given to the company is not produced. The opposite party has stated that because of earnest efforts the spares were supplied at sight within 15 days. As per the quotation signed by both sides, the delivery period is within 4-5 weeks. The load cell was delivered on 15.11.07 and the digitizer was supplied on 19.01.07. Thus the load cell was supplied (13) on the 11th day and the digitizer was supplied on 16th day after payment. We are having the impression that the supply of spare parts was commenced much earlier than the agreed period and it was only because of the earnest efforts taken by the opposite party. Merely because of the non-production intimation letter we cannot come to the conclusion that the information was not given at the proper time or the opposite party has made inordinate delay in giving information to the company. The evidence produced by the complainant to prove the acceptance of his demand for the supply of item is Ext.P3, the e-mail. No evidence produced to prove that his demand was accepted by the opposite parties. We have perused Ext.P3 in detail. At first the complainant has confirmed the quotation. The second part is only a request made by the complainant. The complaint has no right to insist that the request should be accepted and obeyed by the opposite parties. The complainant has argued that the opposite party violated the assurance of after sales service as per the quotation dated 10th (14) August 1993. The written assurance given at that time that we have 84 establishments in India fully equipped with technically qualified service personal, transport facilities test weigh and stocked with necessary working spares”. It is true that such an assurance was made by the opposite parties at the time of issuance of quotation dtd 10th August 1993. The present complaint was not related to that quotation. The present complaint is based upon the allegation that the opposite parties had violated the assurance given by the opposite parties as per quotation which was accepted by both parties on 03.01.07. The complainant had admitted in the complaint itself that the opposite party told him and that the digitizer L 115 is a latest one and that is not available in Cochin office and the item has to bring from Hariyana, Faridabad Factory. Hence the negligence attributed against the opposite party is not based upon the assurance of after sales services as per quotation dtd:10.08.1993. (15) For all that has been discussed above, we are of the view that there is no negligence or deficiency in service from the part of opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs. Dated this the 23rd day of September 2010. K.Vijayakumaran :Sd/- Adv.Ravi Susha :Sd/- R.Vijayakumar :Sd/- // Forwarded by Order // Senior Superintendent Date of Filing: 15.03.08. Date of Order: 23.09.10. INDEX List of witness for the complainant PW1 - Sudheer Bose List of documents for the complainant P1 - Copy of communication P2 - Quotation dtd:03.10.07. P3 - Quotation reply P4 - Copy of cheque P5 - Cheque dtd:08.12.07. P6 - Advocate notice P7 - Reply notice P8 - Maintenance service contract List of witness for the opposite party DW1 - Honey purushothaman List of documents for the opposite party D1 - original quotation signed and given by the complainant | 
