Karnataka

StateCommission

RP/70/2017

Malabar Gold And Diamonds - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manjaswamy.A. - Opp.Party(s)

H.M.H

18 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JULY 2022

 

PRESENT

 

SRI. RAVI SHANKAR                         : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI              : MEMBER

 

Revision Petition No. 70/2017

 

Malabar Gold and Diamonds Proprietor/Authorised Dealer, Prominent Jewel Arcade Pvt. Ltd., Lakshmi Arcade, B.M. Road, Hassan. Rep. by Authorised Officer, Mr.Chandra Sekharan Nair P. S/o. M. Chachu Kutty   (By Sri. Haneef M.H.) V/s	….Revision Petitioner
(By In-person)	..…Respondent

O R D E R

 

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The OP has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 21.06.2017 passed by District Commission, Hassan on I.A. in C.C.No.72/2016 to reject the lab test report and submits that the complainant has initially filed complaint alleging deficiency in service in selling silver bracelet on 08.01.2015 stating that after purchase he noticed that poor quality of silver bracelet.  He alleged there is mixture of manganese and there is no silver at all in the bracelet.  Hence, sought for refund of the amount paid towards purchase of the silver bracelet.  OP refused for which complainant filed a complaint before District Commission alleging unfair trade practice.  During the course of trial the complainant referred the article to the laboratory test on 20.12.2016.  Accordingly, the test was conducted and report was submitted to the District Commission.  At the time of referring the article to the lab both parties have filed memo of instructions, but, the lab has not followed the memo of instructions and given different opinion, for which the revision petitioner filed objection to the lab report.  But the District Commission without considering their objections has accepted the lab report.  Hence, the revision petitioner submits before this Commission that the lab report has to be rejected as the lab which was referred for test has not followed the memo of instructions filed by this revision petitioner and also sought for alternative lab test.

2. The Learned advocate for revision petitioner submits the District Commission ought to have rejected the lab report if they have not complied memo of instructions.  Hence, submits to set aside the order and prays to reject the lab report.
3. On going through the order sheet we noticed here that after referring the article to the lab test, laboratory has submitted its report.  Basing on the said report the District Commission posted the matter for arguments.  We are of the opinion that the dispute between the parties has to be disposed of by the District Commission summarily after accepting evidence, documents, expert’s evidence if any and arguments submitted by both parties.  Here we noticed the article was put forth for lab test and lab has given its report.  The matter has to be adjudicated basing on the material evidence placed by both parties and on expert’s opinion.  The question of rejection of the lab report does not arise at all as the District Commission has to dispose of the matter summarily and expeditiously.  We found no merit in the arguments submitted by the Learned advocate for revision petitioner to reject the report submitted by the laboratory.  Hence, the revision petition fails and accordingly, dismissed.

 

 

MEMBER                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

CV*