CONSUMER PROTECTION COUNCIL vs SUSHRUT ELECTRONICS P. LTD.

COMPLAINANT No. 2 is a firm of Chartered Accountants. The COMPLAINANT (for short - the firm) had negotiated with the first Opposite Party who are manufacturers of electronic PABX System, to purchase and install the same. After negotiations, the complainant placed an order for supply of the telephone system vide letter dated: August 31, 1988 and also forwarded therewith a sum of Rs. 7,500/- and the balance was to be paid after installation of the system. The telephone system was, however, installed as late as on 19.12.1988 after the complainant pursued for the same.

IT is the case of the complainant that the telephone system so installed, broke down within a short time and the representative of the Opposite Party was unable to sort the problem. Ultimately, however, as the system could not be repaired or set right, the complainant had to go on without the same and resort to normal telephone facility. On these averments, the complain- ant has prayed for the reliefs as stated in para 5, including Rs. 46,900/- being the price paid for the purchase of telephone system, Rs. 64,241/ - by way of damages and costs from the Opposite Party. The summons for filing the written statement was served upon the Opposite Party and the complaint was posted for hearing and filing of the written statement on 26.8.1991. As the telegraphic request of Opposite Party No. 1 for time, the matter was adjourned to today.

Today, when the matter was called out, none appears on behalf of Opposite Party No. 1, nor there is any request for time. The Manager on behalf of Opposite Party No, 2 had appeared but he does not file any written statement and has also no instructions regarding the matter, from Oppo- site Party No. 2.

MR. Vinodbhai Shah for the Association and MR. Soparkar, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Complainant No. 2 state that this Commission can pass the orders on the basis of the accepted amount of Rs. 23,000/- the amount as offered by the Managing Director of Opposite Party No. 1 M/s. Sushrut Electronics Pvt. Ltd.. They, therefore, insisted that the matter may be taken up for final hearing since the complainant had agreed for damages. Now, as the allegations and averments made in the complaint, the system was defective from the beginning and several complaints were made description whereof is given in extenso in the complaint itself. The complainant has averred that on account of the unfair trade - practice adopted by the Opposite Party, the complainant firm suffered the loss, damages and that the telephone system suffers form innumer- able defects, and that the services of the Opposite Party also suffer from deficiency in service.

IT is not necessary to decide all the aforesaid points, since we are convinced from the documents produced on record that PABX System was defective and was not found to be useful to the complainant. The system was purchased at a cost of Rs. 46,900/-. IT appears from the letter dated 31.8.1988 addressed by Complainant No. 2 to the manufacturing company, while placing order for the supply of system, that a Draft of Rs. 7,500/ - was enclosed therewith and the balance amount was to be paid on installation of the system. Thus the complainant had paid in all Rs. 46,900/- to the Opposite Party. IT also appears that after the long drawn correspondence between the parties, Oppo- site Party No. 1 made a proposal to accept Rs. 25,000/- by way of settlement since the system was not curable. As the record shows, ultimately, the Managing Director of the supplier Company by his letter dated April 5, 1991, confirmed the said proposal and showed willing- ness to exchange the system and had promised to pay Rs. 23,000/- for the exchange. IT has also been stated therein that the demand draft for the agreed amount would be sent to the complainant with the person taking delivery of the unservicable system. However, since the Opposite Party did not take any further step, the complainant has filed this complaint. Mr. Soparkar, the learned Advocate appearing for the complainant has agreed that in view of the correspondence on record and the agreement, his client is willing to accept Rs. 23,000/- if the same is made payable with interest and costs. Though we are convinced that the system is defective and the complainant is entitled to put up the claim for the full amount, we are not inclined to pass any order for the full amount as claimed. In our opinion, Opposite Party No. 1 is bound to pay Rs. 23,000/- as agreed by as per his letter and we are told that complainant No. 2 has already withdrawn the system and stored it in a box for being handed over to Opposite Party No. 1. There is no reason why the said amount with interest should not be awarded to Complainant No. 2. Complainant No. 1, Consumer Association, also agrees that the order may be passed in favour of Complainant No. 2. We, therefore, deem it fit to award Rs. 23,000/- with 18 per cent, interest from April 5,1991, and costs and pass the following final order. However, it is clarified that on payment of the aforesaid amount, Complain- ant No. 2 will return the system to Opposite Party No. 1. In the result, we pass the following order. ORDER Opposite Party No. 1 shall pay to complainant No. 2 M/s. Kantilal patel & Company, Rs. 23,000/- (Twenty-three thounsand), with running interest thereon at 18 per cent from April 5, 1991, the date on which the Opposite Party accepted the liability till payment within four weeks from today. The Opposite Party shall pay to Complainant No. 2, the costs of this complaint, which we quantify at Rs. 500/-, also within four weeks from today. No order as to costs so far Opposite Party No. 2 is concerned, and shall bear its own costs. The complaint shall stand disposed of accordingly. Complaint allowed.