M.THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The opposite party is the appellant.
(2.) The respondent/complainant purchased a Lex Mark High resolution black print Cartridge from the opposite party on 22.4.2001 for the purpose of using it in his Lex Mark Printer, showing the used Cartridge for identification. Believing that correct Cartridge and a genuine product was given, a sum of Rs.1,750/- was paid. In the first week of June, when the new Cartridge was taken for use, it failed to fit in with the printer and therefore, replacement was sought for, which was refused by the opposite party, including costs also alternatively, contending there is no warranty, forgetting the fact, there is an implied warranty. There is no condition, attached to the sale that the Cartridge should be returned within the specified period. The complainant was unable to use the Cartridge because of non-comparability and the opposite party by selling this kind of Cartridge committed unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint is not only entitled to for the recovery a sum of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony, but also a sum of Rs.1,750/- being the value of the Cartridge.
(3.) The opposite party/appellant admitting the purchase of Cartridge from them, by the complainant, resisted the case contending that once Cartridge was opened, it cannot be accepted for exchange, that the complainant having purchased wrong Cartridge, opened it on his own without verification, which cannot be termed, as unfair trade practice or negligence, denying that before purchase, the old Cartridge was shown, thereby praying for the dismissal of the complaint.;