State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mandeep Maan vs Fortune International on 24 February, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1399 of 2004
Date of institution: 16.11.2004
Date of decision : 24.02.2010
Mandeep Maan son of Amarjit Singh Maan, 149 City Centre, Tehsil and Distt.
Amritsar.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. Fortune International C/15, Aeroview Towers, Sham Lal Building,
Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500016 through its Director/Manager/Officer-in-
Charge.
2. Ess Ess Telesystems, Booth - 7 (FF) GNDU Shopping Complex, P.O.
Khalsa College, G.T.Road, Amritsar through S.Jatinder Singh.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 28.09.2004
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Sh.Piare Lal Garg, Member
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Vineet Sharma, Advocate
For the respondents : None
JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
The appellant is running a Public Call Office on small basis to earn his livelihood. He purchased one Fortune 2009, STD PCO Monitor in the month of October, 2003 from M/s Ess Ess Telesystems respondent No.2 for a sum of Rs.9500/-. It was manufactured by M/s Fortune International respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 was a dealer of the manufacturers. The appellant was assured by the respondents before he purchased the monitor that it would give satisfactory results but after its installation, it was found that it was having manufacturing defect. It was not working properly and it was giving trouble from the day of its installation. The appellant was induced to purchase it by the respondents with malafide intention.
First Appeal No.1399 of 2004 2
2. It was further pleaded that the matter was brought to the notice of the respondents that the equipment was not working properly and was not giving desired results. The printer of the equipment also became faulty alongwith other equipment on 01.02.2004. Respondent No.2 was informed on 3.2.2004, 4.2.2004 and 5.2.2004 but to no effect. Representations/reminders were also sent to the respondents. Ultimately, Jatinder Singh, functionary of respondent No.2 took away the printer on 10.2.2004 in order to remove the defects and to make the apparatus functional. However, neither the defects were removed nor the printer was returned. Rather the working of the PCO of the appellant had come to a stand still. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the appellant filed a complaint against them in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short "the District Forum") for refund of Rs.9500/- with interest. Compensation and costs were also prayed.
3. Respondent No.1 did not come present and was proceeded against exparte.
4. Respondent No.2 filed the written statement. It was pleaded that the appellant had purchased 1 Fortune 2009, STD PCO Monitor in August, 2003 from respondent No.2 for a sum of Rs.5500/-. It was denied if the said apparatus was purchased for Rs.9500/- or if it was purchased in October, 2003. It was denied if respondent No.2 was the dealer or the authorised service centre of respondent No.1 who was the manufacturer of this monitor. Rather respondent No.2 was providing service in the form of repair. It was denied if the Manager of respondent No.2 had visited the premises of the appellant or if the appellant was induced to purchase this equipment or if any assurance was given to him at the time of sale of the equipment.
5. It was denied if this equipment had any manufacturing defect or if it was not working properly since the date of its installation. It was also denied if any defect in this equipment was ever brought to the notice of respondent No.2. First Appeal No.1399 of 2004 3
6. It was pleaded that this equipment was given for repair to respondent No.2 in the second week of February, 2004. There was minor defect in it. It was removed by respondent No.2. It was denied if any complaint was made by the appellant to respondent No.2 on 3.2.2004, 4.2.2004 and 5.2.2004 or if any representation/reminder was sent by him to respondent No.2.
7. It was further pleaded that the said printer was in the custody of respondent No.2. The minor defect in it has already been removed and the appellant was at liberty to take back the printer at any time from the shop of respondent No.2 after making payment of necessary repair charges. Rather the appellant refused to take the printer or to make the payment of repair charges to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is ready to handover the printer to the appellant after receiving repair charges. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.2. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
8. Mandeep Maan appellant filed his affidavit Ex.C1. On the other hand, respondent No.2 filed the affidavit of Jatinder Singh as Ex.R1.
9. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents produced on the file by them, the learned District Forum partly accepted the complaint vide impugned order dated 28.09.2004 and directed the respondents to make the payment of Rs.2750/- to the appellant after the appellant returned the PCO Monitor to the respondents.
10. Hence, this appeal.
11. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 28.09.2004 be set aside and the appellant be awarded adequate compensation to the appellant
12. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
13. It was pleaded by the appellant that he had purchased the STD PCO Monitor from respondent No.2. It was manufactured by respondent No.1. These facts are admitted by respondent No.2.
First Appeal No.1399 of 2004 4
14. The appellant has pleaded that it was purchased for a sum of Rs.9500/-. Respondent No.2, however, has pleaded that it was purchased for a sum of Rs.5500/- only. The appellant has pleaded that it was purchased in October, 2003. However, respondent No.2 has pleaded that it was purchased in the month of August, 2003. The appellant has not placed on the file any bill/receipt to show if he had purchased the same for a sum of Rs.9500/- or if he had purchased it in October, 2003. Therefore, the version of the respondent is believed that he had purchased it in August, 2003 for a sum of Rs.5500/-.
15. Although, the appellant has pleaded that the monitor had become defective immediately after its installation and he had made number of complaints to respondent No.2 but there is no evidence in support of this version.
16. In any case, it is admitted even by the respondents that the printer of the monitor was brought to his shop in February, 2004 for repair as there was a defect in it. Although it was alleged to be a minor defect but the fact remains that neither the defect is attributed to the appellant nor any negligence on the part of the appellant is alleged in operating the monitor or its printer. It means, therefore, that the Monitor/printer purchased by the appellant from respondent No.2 which was manufactured by respondent No.1 was of inferior quality which suffered the defect within 6-7 months of its purchase. The very fact that it lying repaired with respondent No.2 since February, 2004 obviously proved that it had become defective soon after its purchase.
17. If it had been a minor defect, the respondents would not have asked for repair charges. Since respondent No.2 is asking for the repair charges, it means that it was a major defect.
18. Obviously, the appellant purchased this monitor/printer to earn his livelihood but since it had become defective, therefore, not only he suffered the loss but also suffered mental tension etc. Since respondent No.1 was the manufacturer of this monitor/printer and since respondent No.1 had failed to First Appeal No.1399 of 2004 5 appear to contest the case, therefore, respondent No.1 is held liable for the mental tension/financial loss/physical harassment suffered by the appellant.
19. So far the value of the PCO/STD monitor is concerned, the appellant will return the same to respondent No.2 within one month after receipt of a copy of this order and respondent No.2 would return a sum of Rs.5500/- to the appellant. If respondent No.2 fails to do so within one month after receipt of the PCO/STD monitor, then respondent No.2 would be liable to pay interest also on this amount @ 9% p.a. from today till the date of payment. However, respondent No.2 would be entitled to recover this amount from the manufacturer respondent No.1
20. The appellant is awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation which will be payable by respondent No.1 having manufactured defective pieces thereby causing financial loss and mental tension to the purchaser. If respondent No.1 fails to pay this amount within one month after receipt of a copy of this order, respondent No.1 will be liable to pay interest on this amount @ 9% p.a. with effect from today. The appellant is also held entitled to costs of Rs.5000/- payable by respondent No.1.
21. In view of the discussion held above, this appeal is accepted and the impugned order dated 28.9.2004 is modified in the terms stated above.
22. The arguments in this case were heard on 17.02.2010 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
23. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (PIARE LAL GARG) MEMBER (MRS.AMARPREET SHARMA) MEMBER February 24 , 2010.
Paritosh