Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

M/S.Blue Chip India vs Dr.Chandrashekara Patil on 22 June, 2005

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.
DATED: 22.06.2005

PRESENT

SMT.RAMA ANANTI-I
SRI.J.N.SRINIVASA MURTI-IY

: MEMBER
: MEMBER

Appeal No. 1095/2003

1. M] s.B1ue Chip India

No.4-60 1 / 24-A,

Basaveshwar Colony,

Gulbarga.

By its Proprietor

Mr. Mohammed Shiblee

.... .Appel1ant/ s
(By Shri/ Smt U.S Sanjeeva Murthy )
-Versus-

1. Dr. Chandrashekara Patil

Sri.Chandrasheka1a Patil,

S] o.Virupanna,

ENT Specialist,

Station Area,

Yadg1'ri--585 202.

.... . Respondent] s

(By Shril Smt Veeresh B Patil)

ORDER

SMT.RAMA ANANTI-I : MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the Op against the order dated 31.07.2003 in Complaint No. 77/2001 passed by the DF, Gulbarga by which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed. The OP was directed to pay Rs. 47 ,000, /-- with interest at 12% p.a. and Rs. 1,000 / - as costs, to the complainant.

The case of the complainant was that on 16.08.2000, he had purchased the computer with brand name Wipro Voyager along with other necessary accessories for Rs. 47 ,000 /~ from the OP and obtained receipt for the same. Later the OP realized that separate rate for the colour monitor ought to have been quoted for which he had demanded Rs.8,600/-- towards the cost of the colour monitor. The complainant had agreed to pay the said amount to the OP. On 02.10.2000, the OP installed the said computer at the office of the complainant along with one year 2 A. 1095 /2003 guarantee period. Thereafter, the said computer had developed some problem during guarantee period and tl1e same was brought to the notice of OP to rectify the defects. Inspite of several request and reminders, the OP had failed to rectify the defects which amount to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, this complaint before the DF seeking compensation of Rs.1,08,000/-- with interest and costs.

The OP filed its version and denied all the allegation made by the complainant in his complaint. He further contended that the defects had not been brought to the notice of the manufacturer by the complainant and he was not made as a party to the proceedings. He further contended that the manufacturer was liable to rectify the defects or to replace the same. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP as he Was a dealer of computers manufactured by Wipro Computers Ltd. ,. Hence, requested for dismissal of the complaint.

The DF held that there was not only delay in installing the computer by the OP, but also he had supplied a defective computer which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP for which the complainant is entitled to get back his money along with interest from the OP. Considering these facts the DF passed the impugned order which led the OP to file this appeal before us.

In this appeal, We heard the arguments of learned counsel on behalf of both the parties.

The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that he is only a dealer of computers. But the manufacturer is directly liable and responsible for any defects in the computer which developed after the installation. The respondent intentionally not made the manufacturer as a party to the proceedings though he is a necessary party to the proceedings.

He further submitted that the respondent is a Doctor not trained in handling the computers, and thereafter it Went out of order, for which the appellant is not responsible. Hence, he requested this Commission to set aside the order of the DF and allow his appeal.

No doubt, that the appellant is a dealer of computers manufactured by Wipro Computers Ltd., but he is the person Who sold the computer to the respondent. Once if he collects the money by selling the computer, it is his responsibility to see that defect free computer should have been supplied to the respondent.

The manufacturer need not be a necessary party to the proceeding as there is no privity of contract between the respondent and the manufacturer. If such being the case, the appellant is liable to pay the amount to the respondent after collecting the same from the manufacturer.

The LC for the appellant has not produced any evidence to show that the respondent doctor is incapable of handling the computers which caused non functioning of the computer. Hence, his contention that respondent is not trained in handling the computers and on account of his mishandlingvthe computer went out of order, cannot be accepted. Hence, We are of the opinion that the decision rendered by the DF as per its impugned order is proper and correct. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the DF. This appeal has to be dismissed.

Accordingly, it is dismissed with no order as to costs.

ORDER Appeal is dismissed.

N i aw' ME BER MEMBER v.pv.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2884 OF 2006 (From the order dated 22.6.05 in Appeal No. 1095/03 of the State Commission, Karnataka) M/s. Blue Chip India, Petitioner N .4"'6 " «m~ Basaveshwar Colony, is 3 Cltipy Q;

Gulbarga { Q/9 Q By its Proprietor I ,. is R' :11» Mr. Mohammed Shiblee, ' , Vs. Dr. Chandrashekara Patial S/O Virupanna, I Respondent ENT Specialist, Station Area, Yadgiri-5 85 202 BEFORE :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S'.GUPTA,

- PRESIDING MEMBER DR. P.D.SHENOY, MEMBER For the Petitioner Ms. Kiran Suri, Advocate DATED : 13"' October. 2006 ORDER JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA, MEMBER Delay of 5 days in filing revision petition is condoned.

The petitioner/opposite_ party sold a computer manufactured by Wipro Voyager: for Rs.47,000/-- to the respondent/complainant on 16.8.2009. Qfiiaiter on' realizing that the rate for colour monitor ought to have been quoted separately the petitioner demanded Rs.8,600/-- towards cost of colour monitor which the respondent agreed to pay. On 2.10.2000, computer was installed in the office of the respondent. 'Warranty period one year. During the warranty period the computer developed some problems. Since the petitioner failed to rectify the defects despite their being brought to its notice, therespondent filed complaint seeking compensation which was contested by the petitioner. The District Forum allowed the complaint with direction to the petitioner to pay amount of Rs.47,000/- with interest @ 12% from the date of complaint to the respondent vide order dated 31.07.2000. Appeal filed against District Forum's 3 i a Commission by the order dated 22.06.05. it is this order which is being challenged in this revision.

Submission advanced by Mrs. Kiran Suri for petitioner is that (i) petitioner was a dealer and liability for refund of the price of computer was that of manufacturer who was not impleaded as a party in thecomplaint and (ii) since no internet facility was available at Yadgir at the time the computer was installed the respondent did not have internet account and the allegation of modem being defective was without any basis.

Respondent did not have any privity of contract with the manufacturer of the computer and, therefore, joinder of the manufacturer as a party in the complaint was not at all necessary. During the course of argument Mrs. Sun has conceded that the plea at Z (ii) above had not been taken in the written version by the petitioner. In absence of plea at

(ii) above/_ the petitioner cannot be permitted; ' /17* to nor can it be considered. There is no gr 3 ,4:

¢;*»''' ._ Rx'! with the orders passed by fora below in revisonal jurisdictions u/s 21 (b) of C.P. Act, 1986. Dismissed.

Ah ...§.f"£.'./7."

IIK S Gupta ] preS'd"7Q Member Si:/is z' P o s'nen¢,,'j YD] Member