State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S.Control Zee (P) Ltd. vs P.Abdul Samad on 7 June, 2008
.
CDRC, Sisuvihar Lane, Sasthamangalam.P.O, Trivandrum-10
Appeal(A) No. 46/2001
M/s.Control Zee (P) Ltd
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
P.Abdul Samad
Narayana Das
Roopjit
Baithul Islam Finance and Investment (P) Ltd
Sterling Computers Ltd
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
2. SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
3. SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. M/s.Control Zee (P) Ltd
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. P.Abdul Samad
2. Narayana Das
3. Roopjit
4. Baithul Islam Finance and Investment (P) Ltd
5. Sterling Computers Ltd
For the Appellant :
1. S.Reghukumar
For the Respondent :
1. K.G.Mohandas Pai
ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.46/01 JUDGMENT DATED 07.06.08 PRESENT:-
JUSTICE.SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER M/s.Control Zee (P) Ltd., Opposite NationalHospital, Mavoor Road, Calicut. : APPELLANT (By Adv.S.Reghukumar) Vs 1.P.Abdul Samad, Comp-Land, Markaz Complex, Calicut-4 (Complainant) 2.Mr.Narayana Das, Managing Director, M/s. Control Zee (P) Ltd., Opposite NationalHospital, Navoor Road, Calicut(2nd opposite party) 3.M/s.Roopjit Chief Executive, M/s.Control Zee (P) Ltd., Opposite NationalHospital, : RESPONDENTS Navoor Road, Calicut(3rd opposite party) 4.Baithul Islam Finance & Investment, (P) Ltd., 21/3703, Near R.K.Mission High School, Calicut -18 (4th opposite party) 5.Sterling Computers Ltd., Madras, 19, Cathedral Garden Road, Chennai-600 034.(5th Opposite party) (By Adv.K.G.Mohandas Pai & A.Mohammed Faisel) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
The appellant is the first opposite party in OP.No.275/94 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikode. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.30,975/- to the complainant with interest at 12% from 5.4.94 and also a sum of Rs.5000/- as costs.
2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a computer from the appellant for a sum of Rs.63,300/- and also placed order for a laser printer for which he paid an advance of Rs.24,500/-. The laser printer was not supplied. The computer supplied was not having the configuration that he ordered. Hence he could not use the computer. The complainant is running a computer training institution.
3. The opposite parties 1 to 3 ie; the first opposite party firm, and its Managing Director and Chief Executive had disputed the contentions of the complainant and alleged that the liability if any, is that of the manufacturer. It is also pointed out that it is the fourth opposite party, the financier to the complainant who placed the order with the first opposite party and hence there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the first opposite party.
4. The fourth opposite party contended that he is not a necessary party; and the fifth opposite party who was impleaded after remand did not enter appearance.
5. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3.
6. It is pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that the computer has been repossessed by the 4th opposite party, the financier on account of non payment of the instalments due. No evidence has been adduced as to how many instalments were remitted by the complainant to the financier. It is pointed out that when the matter was taken up earlier before this Commission a sum of Rs.43,525/- was deposited by the appellant and the above amount has been later withdrawn by the complainant and hence according to him the above amount itself is sufficient compensation in the circumstances. It is pointed out that the 4th opposite party is a charitable institution and that they have repossessed the computer and given it to another needy person. It is also pointed out that the computer as such had no defects and the allegation is with respect to the configuration. The alleged incorrect configuration could not be established by any objective evidence. No expert commission has been taken out. The amount claimed ie; Rs.63,300/- as the value of the computer cannot be granted to the complainant as he is not in the possession of the computer.
7. The fact that the complainant received a sum of Rs.43,525/- from the first opposite party/appellant is not disputed. In the circumstances we find that the above amount is sufficient compensation in the circumstances. Hence the appeal is allowed in part. It is ordered that the complainant will not be entitled for any more amount.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
JUSTICE.SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER R.AV ...................... JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU ...................... SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN ...................... SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR