Nexus Computers Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. vs K. Thenmozhi And Anr.

RESPONDENT No. 1 was the complainant before the District Forum and respondent No. 2 was the first opposite party and Dealer before the District Forum. The revision petitioners were opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 before the District Forum.

THE complainant Ms. K. Thenmozhi decided to purchase a computer for personal use. The dealer, Managing Director of M/s. System Base Laboratories, Trichy had given an estimate of Rs. 52,000 towards the computer and its accessories. To purchase the same, the complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 15,000 as advance and given a demand draft for Rs. 37,000 in favour of M/s. Nexus Computers Pvt. Ltd. One of the accessories was IBM Instrument Processor functioning at a speed of 686 which was to be installed in the computer. Instead Cyrics Processor with a speed of 486 was installed resulting in problems. Dissatisfied with the working of the computer, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to take back the computer sold to her which was fitted with wrong accessories and to refund the cost price of Rs. 42,000 along with the interest @ 24% p.a. and also to pay Rs. 1 lakh towards mental agony and expenses.

THIS case was contested. The dealer said that it is a famous firm in Trichy; that they have secured a good name in selling telecommunication instruments and they were the agent of Nexus Computers manufactured by 2nd opposite party since 1997; that M/s. Nexus Computers had promised that the computer will be fitted with IBM Processor and if there was any deficiency, Nexus Computers would be made liable. M/s. Nexus Computers contested the case stating that the Cyrics Processor fitted to the computer is a part of the IBM Processor; IBM is a big firm and Cyrics Firm is working jointly with IBM, etc. The District Forum after analyzing the facts of the case, perusal of the evidence and also after hearing the Advocates for the parties, observed that one Mr. Thiru J. Edwin Rajkumar, an Expert working in the firm Liberty Micro System came along with Engineer Mr. Ashok Kumar working under Nexus Computers Private Limited and inspected the computer arid gave a report, according to which the instrument Cyrics Processor had been installed in the said computer instead of IBM instrument and it functions at a speed of 486. Accordingly, the District Forum directed refund of the amount of Rs. 42,000 along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 2.9.1997 and on receipt of the amount, the computer may be taken back. Further, the opposite party No. 1 was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000 to the complainant and opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 were also directed to pay Rs. 25,000 jointly or severally to the complainant as compensation. In addition, all the opposite parties were also to pay Rs. 2,000 to the complainant towards the cost of litigation within one month of its order.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, M/s. Nexus Computers filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission by a crisp and short order held that there is no reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed without costs.

DISSATISFI ED with the order of the State Commission, this revision petition has been filed by the manufacturer M/s. Nexus Computers Private Limited. At the time of admission of this case, the petitioners were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 42,000 before the District Forum.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that there was no default, at all, in the computer sold to the complainant and the Foras below have wrongly analysed the facts of the case; that there was no privity of contract between the dealer and the manufacturer; and finally, that the interest and compensation awarded are on the higher side. Learned Counsel for the respondents strongly supported the orders of the Fora below.

NO new points have been adduced before us. The facts of the case are not in dispute. They have been analysed in a detailed crystal clear manner by the District Forum which has given adequate opportunities to the parties and their Counsel to place their case before it. The words defect'' and deficiency'' have been defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Sections 2(f) and 2(g) as under: 2 (f) defect'' means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, epress or implied, or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods;

2(g) deficiency'' means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract of otherwise in relation to any service.

THEREFORE , it is clear that the good sold to the consumer was defective and as it was not rectified hence, there was also deficiency in service. As interest has been awarded @ 18% p.a., it will also include the element of compensation. Keeping in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=III (2004) SLT 161=2004 (5) SCC 65, we do not consider that the consumer is eligible for compensation besides the interest @ 18% p.a. Therefore, we set aside the compensation awarded by the District forum. Rest of the order of the District Forum is undisturbed. The amount shall be payable both by the manufacturer and the dealer who are jointly and severely liable to pay the same. As the manufacturer has already deposited the sum of Rs. 42,000 before the District Forum, this amount may be withdrawn by the complainant Ms. K. Thenmozhi. The interest and cost awarded by the District Forum shall be paid to the complainant by the dealer and the manufacturer within 60 days from the date of this order. Further, as the manufacturer has dragged the consumer to the level of National Commission, it shall also pay a cost of Rs. 5,000 to the consumer. The complainant shall return the computer and accessories. The revision petition stands disposed of in above terms. R.P. disposed of.