Decided on September 07,2010

R Ethirajan Appellant
Sulaika (Aspin Product) Kerala Respondents

Referred Judgements :-



- (1.)THE order dated 30.6.2008 of CDRF, Kollam in OP 5/05 directing the 1st opposite party to pay to the complainant the sum of Rs. 75,600 with 7.65% Central excise duty and 4% tax along with Rs. 25,000 as compensation and cost of Rs.5,000 is being challenged in this appeal by the 1st opposite party calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below.
(2.)IT is the complainant's case that she has purchased a semi -automatic filling and sealing machine from the opposite parties on 6.1.2003 at a cost of Rs. 75,600 excluding tax duty and installation charges. Installation was done by the opposite parties and the complainant has alleged that from the date of installation itself the performance of the machine was not at all up to the mark and that the quantity of materials of filling by the weight was only 470 grams as against the weight of 500 gms. The filling was also very slow, which according to the complainant was 3 times than compared to manual filling of each pouch. The matter was informed to the 2nd opposite party and the 2nd opposite party after inspection sent a letter to the 1st opposite party on 26.3.2004 to cure the defects which was left uncared by the 1st opposite party, the manufacturer. Alleging deficiency of service and manufacturing defect in the product, the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to return the price of the machines with compensation and costs.
(3.)THOUGH the 2nd opposite party remain absent in the proceedings, the 1st opposite party filed version contending that the 2nd opposite party had supplied a filling and sealing machine to the complainant and the same were manufactured by the 1st opposite party. But it was denied that the machines had any defect and also that the 1 st opposite party had supplied the machine for filling 500 gms of powder using a measuring cup and it was also convincing of the functioning of the machine that the complainant had ordered for the purchase of the machines. Another contention taken by the 1st opposite party was that there would be variations in weight if there was moisture in the powder content. It was also contended that the complainant had not made any complaint about the working mechanism of the machine which would show that there was no manufacturing defect. The 1st opposite party had also contended that it was to evade the repayment of the loan to the bank that the complaint was filed which was only frivolous and vexatious. Thus, the 1st opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P15. The 1st opposite party was examined as DW1 and Ext. B1 was marked.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.