JUDGMENT - Per Justice G.G. LONEY, President:---In this complaint the allegations are made as regards the defective sale of weighing machine. Shortly stated the facts are that the complainant's 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 complainant's 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. 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. 3. In view of the fact that there was no denial of the allegations made by the complainant in this complaint we hold that the complainant has proved allegations made in his complaint. The complainant also has placed on record the copy of the invoice and the correspondence. As per the allegations made by the complainant, the weighing scale which was taken back by the opposite party for stamping and calibration from the Weights Measures Department has not been returned to him. The complainant has also proved his allegations that despite his payment of Rs. 1850 towards the service charges, no service was rendered to him satisfactorily. The complainant alleged that as a result of negligent in the service of the opposite party he has been put to loss of Rs. 2,79,250. 4. The complainant alleged that he is entitled to receive the cost of machine amount to Rs. 48,000/- and Rs. 1850/- towards service charges which he had paid to opposite party on 10-10-1990. The complainant has placed on record the receipt of payment on service charges and the invoice showing the value of the machine, and the receipt of Rs. 450/- dated 28-10-1985. Thus we find that there is sufficient material on record to show that complainant did suffer the loss of Rs. 48,000/- towards the cost of machine and Rs. 1850/-towards service charges. However, there is no material on record to show that the complainant had suffered loss of Rs. 27,000/- for the salaries of the employees, Rs. 100/- for delivery charges and postage, for mental tension, business loss and legal advice. 48,000/- towards the cost of machine and Rs. 1850/-towards service charges. However, there is no material on record to show that the complainant had suffered loss of Rs. 27,000/- for the salaries of the employees, Rs. 100/- for delivery charges and postage, for mental tension, business loss and legal advice. We find that the complainant did not even suffer the loss of typing charges since the complaint is handwritten on a sheet of paper. No Court fee stamp is necessary and there is nothing on record to show that complainant was required to spend for legal advice, business loss and mental tension. The claim of the complainant for legal charges is also not supported by any documents on record. Hence we find that the complainant did suffer some loss and therefore we pass the following order. ORDER The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 48,000/- towards cost of the machine and Rs. 1850/- towards service charges. The rest of claim of the complainant is rejected. The aforesaid amount be paid to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of this order failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Complaint allowed. *****