PERTECH COMPUTERS LIMITED vs KESHAV SOOD

DISTRICT Forum, Hoshiarpur allowed the complaint filed by Dr. Keshav Sood on October 15,1997 with the direction to the appellant - M/s. Pertech Computer Limited and its dealer M/s. Texas Computers, Hoshiarpur to refund Rs. 44,999/- with interest thereon @ 18% p.a. from October 19, 1996 till payment and costs of Rs. 1,000/-. The appeal has been filed by opposite party No. 1 - M/s. Pertech Computer Limited.

DR. Keshav Sood, a practising doctor on October 17, 1996 placed an order for supply of computer Pentinum 120 MHZ for Rs. 44,999/- through the dealer M/s. Texas Computers, Hoshiarpur opposite party No. 2. The computer was to be supplied by the appellant - Company-opposite party No. 1. The delivery was promised within six weeks as per contract. Since, it was not supplied, District Forum was approached by the complainant for recovery of the aforesaid amount with interest @ 24% and damages Rs. 20,000/-. The opposite party contested the complaint taking up preliminary objections regarding territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the complaint and that the complainant was not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. On merits, it was admitted that such order was placed and computer was not supplied on account of rush of orders. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the District Forum, Hoshiarpur had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the appellant-Company is not having head office or branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum. This contention is devoid of merit. Since order was placed at Hoshiarpur with opposite party No. 2 - M/s. Texas Computers, an authorised dealer of the appellant-Company and that the computer was to be supplied at Hoshiarpur, thus cause of action or part thereof arose at Hoshiarpur and the District Forum there had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It was immaterial whether the appellant was having head office or branch office there or not. Since the case was covered under Section 11(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, District Forum, Hoshiarpur had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

It has been argued that the complainant wanted to purchase the computer for his business purposes and the complaint was not maintainable. The complainant was not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. There is no merit in this contention. The complainant is a doctor by profession and wanted the computer to be used by him. Such being the position, the complainant is a consumer as he wanted the computer for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. The element of commercial activity is irrelevant in the circumstances stated above. Reference in this respect be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Cheema Engineering Services v. Rajan Singh, II (1997) CLT 227 (SC)=VI (1998) SLT 20, wherein while making reference to Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, it was observed that any goods purchased by a consumer and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self-employment would clothe the status of a consumer and the buyer of such goods.

SINCE the computer was not supplied within the stipulated period, the District Forum was justified in directing the refund of the amount and granting compensation by way of interest @ 18% p.a. Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.