H.C.L. LTD. vs R.S. SALUJA And OTHERS

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 30th April, 1993 passed by the District Forum, Bilaspur in Case No. 190/91.

THE appeal arises out of a complaint filed by respondent No. 1 against the appellant and respondent No. 2. Briefly, the complainant''s case was that the complainant who carries on the business under the name and style of M/s. Saluja Medical Agency had purchased a personal computer manufactured by the appellant from respondent No. 2. It was averred that the computer was installed on 8th January, 1991 and a sum of Rs. 65,000/- which was its price was paid by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2. It was alleged that the computer was defective and did not operate properly from the first day of its installation and hence when grievance was made by respondent No. 1, respondent No. 2 agreed to refund the price and paid a cheque for a sum of Rs. 49,000/-, but that cheque was dishonoured. THE respondent No. 1, therefore, filed a complaint for replacement of the defective computer or the refund of its price and compensation. THE claim was resisted by the appellant. Respondent No. 2 did not contest the claim. THE main ground on which the claim of the respondent No. 1 was resisted by the appellant was that the computer was supplied and installed by respondent No. 2, that the appellant was unaware of any agreement between respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for refund of its price and, therefore, the appellant could not be held liable to pay any amount to respondent No. 1. THE District Forum found that on a complaint being made by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 about the defective working of the computer, it was replaced by respondent No. 2 and when even the replaced computer was not operating properly, respondent No. 2 entered into an agreement with respondent No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 49,000/- in satisfaction of the claim of respondent No. 1. THE District Forum, therefore, held that the appellant was liable along with respondent No. 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 49,000/- to the complainant. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has filed this appeal. The main contention advanced on behalf of the appellant was neither the first computer nor the replaced one was installed by the authorised engineer of the appellant, that respondent No. 2 alone had entered into an agreement with respondent No. 1 for settlement of the claim and that no liability could be fastened on the appellant. In reply it was contended that the computer was manufactured by the appellant, that respondent No. 2 was its dealer and that respondent No. 1 was entitled to relief against the appellant as well, as granted by the District Forum.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case we have come to the conclusion that the appeal deserves to be allowed. It is admitted by respondent No. 1 that the computer in question was installed by the representative of respondent No. 2, that it was replaced by respondent No. 2 by another computer which was also alleged to be defective and that the claim of respondent No. 1 on account of supply of defective computer was settled by an agreement entered into by respondent No. 1 with respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 has further admitted that he had not read in the instructions on the packing of the computer when it was initially installed that it would be opened and installed by person authorised by the appellant and that the accessories of the computer were not supplied by the appellant. There is nothing on record to show that the replaced computer was manufactured by the appellant. It has come on record that the agreement Ex. D 3 for refund of price was entered into with respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 and that respondent No. 1 did not enter into maintenance contract with the appellant as stipulated by the appellant vide letter Ex. D-6. It has been deposed by S.N. Bhaduri, an official of the appellant that the computer supplied by the appellant is installed by the engineer of the appellant who certifies installation and issues a warranty for a period of one year. We see no congent reason to disbelieve this statement. It is not disputed that the installation of the computer was not by the engineer of the appellant and that no warranty was given by the appellant. The dispute raised by respondent No. 1 regarding defect in the replaced computer supplied by respondent No. 2 was settled with respondent No. 2. In these circumstances the District Forum in our opinion erred in holding the appellant liable to pay any amount to respondent No. 1. The order passed by the District Forum in that behalf deserves to be set aside.

FOR all these reasons this appeal is allowed. The order dated 30th April, 1993 passed by the District FORum is modified. The complaint made by respondent No. 1 against the appellant is dismissed. Respondent No. 1 is held not entitled to receive any amount from the appellant. The order passed by the District FORum against respondent No. 2 is maintained. In the circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal. Appeal allowed.