VANNAJI GANESHLAL AND CO Vs. AVERY INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this complaint the allegations are made as regards the defective sale of weighing machine. Shortly stated the facts are that the complainants firm has been carrying on the business of Gold and Silver ornaments. The Opposite Party Avery INdia Ltd., manufacturers of electronic scale for weighing gold and silver. The complainant alleged that the sales man of the opposite party approached the complainant and persuaded him to purchase electronic scale of Avery Company. He assured complainant that the machine can be imported directly from London under OGL. He further assured the complainant that the Company is responsible for any defect in the said scale and that they will be giving one year free service to the complainant. It was also promised that the opposite party shall also enter into a contract for prompt service for its maintenance. The complainant alleged that he believed the oral representation made by the salesmen of opposite party and purchased one electronic scale manufactured by opposite party from London vide INvoice No. 303623 dated 24-7-1985. After purchasing the scale the complainant paid Rs. 450/- to the opposite party towards installation and calibration of the said scale. On 28-10-1985, the scale was installed in the complainants firm. The complainant also alleged that they entered into a service contract with the opposite party for maintenance of said scale for a period between 1-4-1986 to 31-3-1987 and paid Rs. 1,850 on 10-10-1990. The contract was valid upto 30-9-1991. The said scale was required to be stamped by the Weights & Measures Department before the end of December, 1990 and therefore, it was handed over to the Opposite Party on 6-12-1990 for stamping and calibration at their own expenses The complainant alleged that since 6-12-1990, the opposite party failed to deliver back the said machine to the complainant and it is still lying with the opposite party. The complainant further alleged that he wrote to the Company Office at Bombay and London and at their Head Office at Delhi but till filing of this complaint on 29th June, 1992 he could not get his machine back and therefore he has filed this complaint claiming back Rs. 48,000/- as the cost of the machine, Rs. 1,850 towards service charges. Rs. 100/- towards correspondence and other Misc. charges amounting to Rs. 2,79,250/-

(2.) NOTICE under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act was sent to the opposite party dated 30th March, 1993 which was received by the opposite party. The postal acknowledgement showing the said notice received from the Commission is placed on record. Yet on the date of hearing i.e. on 9-6-1993, none appeared on behalf of the opposite party and therefore, we proceeded exparte against the Opposite Party. The complaint was fixed on 11th August, 1993 for hearing. None appeared for the opposite party on 11-8-1993 and therefore, this commission heard the complainant through Shri F.M. Oswal, Advocate.