CLASSIC SYSTEM vs MANJU KHANNA

THIS is an appeal against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh [hereinafter, for short, referred to as District Forum-II], dated 28.7.2004 in Complaint Case No. 115 of 2002, Smt. Manju Khanna v. M/s. Classic System & Ors.

THE complainant''s case, in brief, is that O.P. No. 3, one Mr. Drip Jot Singh alleged to be authorised agent of O.P. No. 1, took the complainant to O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 from whom the complainant bought a computer and the same was assembled and delivered by O.P. No. 1 on 8.3.2001 vide Bill No. C-39 of the same date. THE bill was issued and signed by O.P. No. 2 as the authorised signatory of O.P. No. 1. THE computer started giving trouble in September, 2001 as its mother board, modem and hard disc were not functioning properly. Matter was reported to O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 and the computer was repaired at the workshop of O.P. No. 1 and was delivered after 15 days. THE computer was being used by the complainant''s son, who was at the time of repairs away to his Polytechnic near Moga and who later fractured his leg and remained in bed for about four months, hence the computer was checked by him only in January, 2002 and it was found that the old problems were still persisting and CD Rom was also not functioning properly. THE problems were reported to the O.Ps. but the computer was not repaired even though the computer was within warranty period. THE complainant served a legal notice dated 26.7.2002 asking the O.Ps. to repair or replace the computer but the O.Ps. did not comply and hence this complaint alleging deficiency in service and seeking following relief: "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the complaint may kindly be accepted with costs and respondents may kindly be directed to replace the computer in question and deliver a new computer to the complainant and make the payment of amount of Rs. 50,000/- on account of damage along with litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 7,000/-." Initially Mr. Parveen Garg, Advocate, appeared on behalf of both O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 but later pleaded no instructions from O.P. No. 2 and hence O.P. No. 2 was proceeded against ex parte.

Version of O.P. No. 1 is that he is carrying out his business from Panchkula and hence District Forum-II has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the case. O.P. No. 1 has also denied assembling or selling the computer to the complainant and alleges that the receipt produced as Annexure C-1 is forged. It is also pleaded that O.P. No. 1 firm ceased to exist w.e.f. 31.3.2001. It is also pleaded that it is unbelievable that a computer once repaired could not be checked for months together to confirm proper repairs.

O.P. No. 3 has denied any connection with the alleged transaction or with O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 and has pleaded that the complainant is not a consumer qua O.P. No. 3. It is strongly denied that O.P. No. 3 is an agent of O.P. No. 1 firm. Learned District Forum-II repelled the objection of O.P. No. 1 regarding territorial jurisdiction because condition No. 4 of the document Annexure R-1 produced by the O.P. No. 1 clearly states that all disputes with O.P. No. 1 would be subject to Chandigarh jurisdiction.

LEARNED District Forum-II also held that the complainant is not a consumer qua O.P. No. 3 because there is no independent evidence to prove the same and that O.P. No. 3 has no connection with the alleged transaction or O.P. Nos. 1 and 2. On analysis of evidence i.e., Annexures C-1 and R-1/1, learned District Forum-II concluded that the head office of O.P. No. 1 is at Panchkula. It also concluded that C-1 i.e., the Bill is genuine document vide which O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 sold the computer and printer in question to the complainant. In the view of the learned District Forum, shying away of O.P. No. 2 from the contest also lends credence to the version of the complainant and it, therefore, held that Annexure C-1 was signed by O.P. No. 2 i.e., Sh. Dalwinder Singh as partner of O.P. No. 1, in which capacity he had every right to sign it and bind all its partners. Further the learned District Forum held that since all major parts of the computer were not functioning properly, therefore, it was having manufacturing defect and since O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 could not repair it despite their efforts to do so, deficiency in service on their part is also proved. However, since the complainant had used the computer for more than one year, the learned District Forum decided to apply a cut of 25% to the price of the computer. Consequently, O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to take back the computer and refund 75% of Rs. 35,700/- i.e., the price of the computer, which comes to Rs. 26,775/-. It also directed the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 to pay Rs. 4,000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental and physical harassment. Furthermore the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant. The order was to be complied with, within two months from the date of receipt, failing which the O.Ps. were also to pay interest @ 6% per annum, on the amount of Rs. 30,775/- from the date of the order till payment.

AGGRIEVED by this order, O.P. No. 1 has filed this appeal, which was taken on board. The record of the complaint case was summoned from District Forum-II and notices were served to the respondents. Mr. Sumit Jain, Advocate represented appellant/O.P. No. 1 whereas Mr. Chaman Lal, Advocate represented respondent No. 1/complainant and Mr. Pankaj chandgothia, Advocate appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3/O.P. No. 3.

MR. Sumit Jain, Advocate submitted that the Bill produced by the complainant is not of the appellant firm and it is also not signed by the O.P. He further submitted that the complaint is at the behest of Sh. Dalwinder Singh, respondent No. 2 but he also admitted that the signatures of Sh. Dalwinder Singh on C-1 had not been proved by any expert. He added that the respondent No. 2 is not a partner of the appellant firm and he has prepared false documents and deliberately did not contest the case. The next submission of the learned Counsel was that the complainant had used the computer for one year and has then filed the complaint. It was also submitted that there is no evidence of any defect or what is not in order in the computer or any part that has been replaced from the market or paid for by the complainant. He finally submitted that the compensation awarded is excessive. Mr. Chaman Lal, Advocate submitted that Sh. Dalwinder Singh is a partner of the appellant firm and O.P. No. 1 has produced no evidence to the contrary. He further added that the same Counsel initially represented both the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 and only later withdrew and did not represent O.P. No. 2. His next submission was that if Annexure C-1 forged, the appellant should have placed his bill book on record as evidence and should have produced Bill prior to or after the date of purchase of the computer but the appellant chose only to produce a specimen of bill form. He, defending the impugned order, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate defended the impugned order as being fair, just and legal.

WE have carefully gone through the evidence on record and have also heard the Counsels of the parties. A comparison of the Bill i.e., C-1 and the specimen of Bill given by O.P. No. 1 i.e., R-1/1 indicates only the format is changed but the terms and conditions of both do not differ. The contention of the appellant that the firm is Panchkula based and has no office in Chandigarh is clearly belied by Condition No. 4 at R-1/1, which states that all the disputes are subject to Chandigarh jurisdiction. Further bald assertion of the appellant that O.P. No. 2 is not a partner of the appellant firm is of no avail as no evidence has been put forward by the appellant to prove this fact. Moreover, the appellant has not produced any bill book or bills to prove that R-1/1 is the Bill of the appellant firm, thus this mere specimen cannot prove that Bill at C-1 is fake or forged. Even though the appellant has contended that the signatures of O.P. No. 2 on the Bill C-1 are forged, no effort has been made to prove so, by any evidence. It is also highly improbable that O.P. No. 2 would forge/sign a document i.e., C-1 which clearly and directly makes him liable for prosecution and hence this allegation of the appellant that the case has been set up by respondent No. 1 in connivance with respondent No. 2 does not hold much water. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the complainant bought a computer from O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 the bill for which has been signed by O.P. No. 2 dated 8.3.2001. This computer had defects in various major components which could not be rectified by the O.P. No. 1 and 2 thus proving the fact that the computer sold had manufacturing defects in it and that these could not be rectified and hence there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P. Nos. 1 and 2. The learned District Forum is correct in concluding that complainant is not a consumer qua O.P. No. 3 and any involvement of O.P. No. 3 in the alleged transaction and with O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 is not proved by any evidence on record.

FROM the foregoing discussion, we are of the clear view that the impugned order is just, fair and legal and it needs no interference. We are also one with the view of the learned District Forum that a cut of 25% in the price of the computer be applied as the complainant has used it for over one year. Consequently, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed as it lacks merit. Parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation. Inter se dispute between O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 is a matter beyond the jurisdiction of this Fora and the parties are at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court in this regard. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.