NAVODAYA VIDYANIKETHAN vs KEONIC MAGNAVISION

IN this complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainants have sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,12,611/- with interest thereon from the opposite party.

THE complainants, an educational institution, purchased a Computer from the opposite party and made payment of an advance amount of Rs. 21,135/- on 18.4.1991. THE opposite party was to supply the said Computer in the month of June, 1991 itself but it could not do. Subsequently in the month of March, 1992 further discussion took place, escalation in the price of the Computer was agreed to be paid by the complainants and the opposite party supplied the Computer to the complainants on 19.5.1992 on receipt of further payment of a sum of Rs. 74,480/- from the complainants. THE complainants before taking delivery of the said Computer, inspected said Computer in the office premises of the opposite party on 13.5.1992. It is the grievance of the complainants that subsequently it was found that the Computer supplied by the opposite party to the complainants was different than the one inspected by the complainants at the premises of the opposite party on 13.5.1992. The complainants found that the said Computer was not working satisfactorily and so made claim with the opposite party to pay back the value of the Computer paid by them and take back the Computer. But the opposite party failed to do so. So they filed a complaint with the police against the opposite party for having cheated the complainants and thereafter filed the complaint seeking compensation from the opposite party.

The opposite party filed its version, admitted the fact that the complainants had purchased a Computer from it as averred by them. The opposite party further averred that the complainants inspected the said computer and thereafter the said Computer was delivered at the premises of the complainants'' institution and installed. The opposite party nextly averred that the allegation that the said Computer was not the Computer that was inspected by them on 13.5.1992 at the premises of the opposite party, were not true. It averred that the same Computer was supplied and installed by the opposite party and it was satisfactorily functioning. The avermerit that it was not satisfactorily working and functioning was incorrect and untrue. On the basis of these averments, the opposite party sought the complaint to be dismissed.

DURING enquiry the complainants examined the Secretary of the Institution as CW 1 and got Exs. C 1 to C 19 marked in evidence. The complainants also examined CW 2 Chala Muttu, who had inspected the Computer at the premises of the opposite party on 13.5.1992. The opposite party filed the affidavit of the Managing Director of the opposite party-Company and got Exs. R 1 to R 9 marked in evidence.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the opposite party, perused the pleadings and the material on record. The main grievance of the complainants is that the Computer that was supplied and installed at the premises of the complainants-institution by the opposite party was a different Computer that was inspected and approved by the complainants on 13.5.1992 at the premises of the opposite party. Another grievance of the complainants is that the said Computer supplied by the opposite party was not satisfactorily functioning.

THE opposite party denied both these aspects and averred that the Computer supplied to the complainants was the same that was inspected and approved by the complainants at the premises of the opposite party on 13.5.1992 and that the said Computer was satisfactorily functioning.

THE complainants have stated that with regard to the supply of the different Computer by the opposite party that was inspected and approved, the complainants had made a police complaint and the police had registered a case against the opposite party. THE complainants in this regard had averred in the complaint thus: "It is submitted that without prejudice to this as the same coming under a different law, the complainants have lodged a complaint with the police of R.T. Nagar Police and the same is pending enquiry and the FIR is duly filed by the police against the opposite party."

The complainants in this regard in their evidence have stated thus: "I had also made a police complaint. I made a police complaint on 16.7.1992 as per Ex. C 17. On receipt of my complaint Ex. C 17 the police registered a case for having committed an offence under Sec. 420, IPC. In the meanwhile, during the course of investigation the police wanted to seize the Computer but we do not permit them to do so as in case of seizure work in the school did suffer after about 3 years the police have given a notice to me stating that we had got the Computer repaired so nothing could be done in the matter."

So from this evidence, it is clear that the complainants had made a complaint against the opposite party for having cheated by supplying a different Computer than the one inspected and approved by the complainants. But the said complaint was closed.

THE complainants have examined CW 2, who has stated that he had inspected the said Computer at the premises of the opposite party on 13.5.1992 and has given the report as per Ext. C 12 stating that the said Computer was brand new and fully in a working condition. Cw 2 has further stated that he had inspected the Computer on 13.7.1992 in the premises of the complainants and gave his report as per Ex. C 14, stating that the said Computer was found to be an old machine and not in a working condition.

THESE reports do not show that the Computer that he had inspected in the premises of the complainant on 13.7.1992 was the same that was purchased by the complainants from the opposite party and which the opposite party had installed in the premises of the complainants on 19.5.1992. Therefore, this evidence also would not help the complainants to prove the fact that the Computer supplied by the opposite party was the one different than the Computer that was inspected by the complainants on 13.5.1992. The complainants have averred that the Computer supplied and installed by the opposite party was not satisfactorily functioning. The complainants in this regard in the complaint have averred thus: "the complainant begs to submit that the machinery supplied are not to their satisfaction and hence the opposite party having not accepted the concession granted to them in the complaint letter dated l0.7.1992 marked as Enclosure XVI, the opposite party is liable to refund the entire sum of Rs. 95,615/- received by them together with market rate of current rate of interest @ 24% p.a....."

The complainants in their evidence have in this regard stated thus: "On 11.6.1992 the Computer was installed and demonstration was given for the first time on that day. I was present on that day when its demonstration was given. I say that I was not present at the site of the actual demonstration. But our Headmistress and one teacher were present when demonstration was given. Both of them reported to me that the Computer was working properly."

THE complainants in their evidence have further stated, as referred above, that they did not permit the police people to seize the Computer as in case of seizure the work in the school would have suffered. This circumstance would go to show that the Computer was in a working condition.

HAVING regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case it is very difficult to hold that the Computer supplied and installed by the opposite party was defective in any way. Having regard to these facts, we are constrained to hold that the complainants have failed to substantiate their grievances.

In the result, therefore, this complaint fails and it is dismissed. The parties are directed to pay and bear their own costs. Complaint dismissed.