Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. We have seen the material on record and heard the arguments. There is no dispute about the complainant having placed the orders with the respondent for Rs. 4.50 lakhs for the following items :

7. There is no dispute that they were initially supplied but they were not of the specifications mentioned in the above quotations. As per record, we see a receipt of Rs. 1,12,500/- signed by the respondent. Admittedly Rs. 3,37,500/- were paid by the Bank. Rs. 15,000/- were also paid by cheque on 2.11.1991 and Rs. 10,000/- had been paid earlier as advance by cheque on 21.9.1991. Thus in all as per record, Rs. 4.75 lakhs had been received by the respondent. There is nothing on record to rebut these figures as the respondent/ opposite party neither filed the written version nor any affidavit by way of evidence. Allegation of the complainant is that one computer, taken away for improving/upgradation, was not returned. Non-supply of material as per specification spelled out in the quotation and yet charging the amount given in the quotation in our view is a clear case of deficiency in service. In our view the State Commission seems to have been misled by the word 'Business loss'. Complainant's husband used the computer for allied purposes. As is made clear that Business loss by way of decreased turnover owing to absence of second Computer-(Rs. 50,000/-) relates to the period November, 1991 to July, 1992 making it a business of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. No way we can consider this a large business. There is nothing on record to show as to how much income she will be making out of this enterprise, after paying for the dues to the Bank. Her husband making use of it to prepare lectures or making other use like writing an article in a professional journal does not and cannot make it a commercial transaction thus taking it outside in purview of the Act. Seeing the material on record, we cannot but agree that the complainant is a consumer and she was using Desk Top Printing for livelihood with no outside help (no employee). Operating from a room in her house, is additional material, supporting the fact that she was using PCS for earning livelihood albeit at times permitting her husband to use the same. We are unable to sustain the orders of the State Commission and are set aside. Coming to the quantum of compensation we see from the prayers made, that the complainant shall be entitled for items (iii) & (iv) only, the total of which works out to Rs. 2,40,500/- plus Rs. 7,000/- excess amount charged (As mentioned earlier the respondent had received Rs. 4.75 lakhs against Rs. 4.5 lakhs; a further sum of 18 thousand was also returned by the respondent to the complainant leaving Rs. 7,000/- as unpaid). We see no merit in other items, as no proof is available on record in support of these claims. In these circumstances the respondent is directed to pay Rs. 2,47,500/-along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing the complaint, 14.8.1992 till the date of payment. The appellant shall also be entitled to cost which we fix at Rs. 5,000/-. The respondent shall arrange to pay the above directed amounts within eight weeks of the order.