Sri M.C.DEVAKUMAR,

       Member

1.  The Complainant Sri. C.K. Prasanna Kumar has filed the complaint against the opposite party proprietor, Under section 12 of the CP Act 1986, alleging deficiency in service and seeking a direction to pay a sum of Rs. 5,800/-towards cost of the spectacle, and Rs. 4,000/-towards cost of new spectacle purchased and a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for the deficiency in service with cost and other reliefs.

2.  The complainant submitted that, he had approached the opposite party at his eye clinic on 22.11.2017 and got tested his eyes and later requested to craft a new spectacle with progressive lenses by paying an advance amount of Rs. 1,400/-. New spectacle was crafted and delivered on payment of the balance amount of Rs. 4,400/- on 03.01.2018. While he was driving his bike on 08.01.2019 at 9.30 A.M he lost the left side glass of his spectacle. Upon request to the opposite party to get changed the same, opposite party rejected to change or replace the entire glass and demanded money to get repair or change the spectacle. As such, alleged the spectacle was defective, substandard and of poor quality. Without a spectacle he suffered to attend his day to day work. As such he was inevitably forced to purchase a new spectacle incurring a sum of Rs. 4,000/-. Aggrieved with the same, a legal notice was issued on 16.01.2019 and was served on opposite party on 19.01.2019, which was neither replied nor complied. Hence filed the complaint seeking reliefs.

3.     The opposite party appeared through his counsel filed his written version. Wherein the opposite party admitted the request made by the complainant on 22.11.2017  for crafting new spectacle with progressive lens as per prescription for a cost of Rs.5,800/-. After thorough examination the said new spectacle was delivered to the complainant on 03.1.2018 by receiving the balance amount and acknowledged through a receipt bearing no. 2838 dated 03.01.2018. Thereafter a lapse of more than one year i.e. on 08.01.2019 the complainant had approached him with broken left side glass and alleged defective service and use of substandard material in crafting the spectacle. The spectacle was broken due to negligence and rough handling of the same while driving. Hence denied the allegations as false. Further, the complainant had approached him after the lapse of six months warranty period and also after usage of the spectacle for more than a year. Hence, he demanded money for crafting new spectacle. As such denied the allegation of deficiency and also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.     To establish the allegations the complaint had filed his affidavit evidence supported with six documents marked as P1 to P6. The opposite party also lead his evidence by filing examination in chief.

5.     Both parties have filed written arguments and addressed the oral arguments. Perusing the material on record, matter posted for orders.

6.      The points that would arise for our consideration are as
7. 1. Whether the complainant established the deficiency in service by the opposite party and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs?
   2. What order? 

7.     Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

      Point No.1:- In the Negative

      Point No.2:- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.     Point No.1:- Admittedly the complainant got tested his eyes at opposite party clinic and had approached opposite party to craft a spectacle, as per prescription on 22.11.2017. The opposite party had agreed to craft a spectacle with progressive lens as per prescription for a sum of Rs. 5,800/-. On 03.01.2018 the newly crafted spectacle was delivered to the complainant by the opposite party and on receipt of the balance amount, a receipt bearing no.2838 was issued as an acknowledgement.

9. The complainant made use of the spectacle without any defect until the same was broken while driving his bike on 08.01.2019. The complainant had used the spectacle for more than one year and on account of the damage to the spectacle approached the opposite party and alleged that, the spectacle was crafted with defective material, as such demanded for an alternative glass free of cost, which was rejected by opposite party.

10.   Thereby the complainant was inevitably forced to purchase another spectacle by incurring a sum of Rs. 4,000/-. The opposite party’s refusal to craft a new spectacle free of cost has been alleged as deficiency in service and hence filed the complaint.

11.   Upon service of the notice of this Commission, the opposite party appeared through his counsel and vehemently denied the allegations as false and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The counsel for opposite party strongly contended that, the complainant took the delivery of the spectacle crafted by him on 03.01.2018 and had used without any kind of deficiencies until the said spectacle was broken on 08.01.2019 while driving his bike. It is contended that, the spectacle was broken due to negligent handling while driving the bike and not due to any latent or inherent defects, as alleged by the complainant. Hence the allegations of use of substandard material is denied.

12. Further, the opposite party counsel contended that, he had demanded money to craft a new spectacle. However, the complainant refused to pay and demanded to craft a new spectacle free of cost, which was rejected. As such contended that, there is no deficiency in service by him and hence prayed for dismissal of complaint.
13.   On Perusal of the evidence and the documents produced and also the arguments addressed by both side, the spectacle crafted by the opposite party was admittedly broken after a lapse of more than one year of its usage and due to mishandling of the same while driving his bike. Since there was no grievance was raised for more than a year about the spectacle and the workmanship in crafting the same, by the complainant, the latent defect in the crafted spectacle is not acceptable and the demand for providing an alternative crafted spectacle free of cost is also not justified. However, the opposite party had offered to craft a new spectacle on payment, which was refused by the complainant. As such this Commission opined that, deficiency in service on the part of opposite party is not justified. In view of the above discussions the point no.1 is answered in the negative.

14.     Point no.2:- With the above observations, the complaint filed by Sri C.K.Prasanna kumar deserved to be dismissed. Hence the following ;

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. Furnish the copy of order to the complainant at free of cost.

      (Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Forum on this the    17^th A      August, 2020)