SUBHAS CHAND AGARWAL Vs. AVL INDIA (P) LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appeal is directed against the order dated 22.3.2007 passed by the Dist Forum at Siliguri in Darjeeling in case No. 48/S/06 wherein the Ld. Forum below dismissed the complaint on contest against the O.Ps. without cost.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellant has preferred the instant appeal mainly on the grounds that the complainant filed necessary documents in support of his complaint. But the Forum below did not consider it properly. The order was passed on assumption and presumption. The Ld. Forum below erred in passing the order on the grounds that there was no expert evidence in respect of manufacturing defect. The Forum did not consider the evidence adduced by the brother of the appellant by way of an affidavit. The respondent Company admitted the defects of the said machine /smoke meter in its written version and stated that the alleged defects occurred for mis -handling of the said machineries by the appellant. The respondent Company did not produce any document or job sheet in support of its contentions that it had removed the defects of the said machinery. There was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps./Respondents in selling the said smoke meter with accessories thereof.

(3.) THE facts of the case in a nut shell are as follows: Sri Subas Chand Agarwal (Appellant herein) wanted to start a pollution testing centre on the basis of a certificate granted by the competent authority. A representative of the respondent Company met the complainant and requested him to purchase a smoke meter with accessories. He paid a sum of Rs. 1,40,000 for the smoke meter which was installed at his place at Burdwan Road, Siliguri by the service engineer of the respondent Company on 18.8.2005. But soon after installation of the said smoke meter with accessories, the said smoke merer developed defects and was not functioning properly. Subsequently, the oil meter of the said smoke meter became non -functioning. As a result a number of vehicles tested was far below the expected figures. Complaint was sent to the respondent on 11.5.2006 to take necessary action by replacing the smoke meter with accessories thereof with a defect free smoke meter. The respondent Company did not take any action. The said smoke meter is still in a non -functioning condition. The defects occurred within the warranty period of one year. This was deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. The complainant has been experiencing hardship in earning his livelihood, hence the complaint before the Forum below.