R.J.INTERNATIONAL vs JHALANI TOOLS INDIA LTD.

M/s. R.J. International and others have come up in an appeal against the order 17th March, 1994, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Sonepat, whereby the complaint of M/s. Jhalani Tools (India) Ltd., Kundli-Sonepat has been accepted and the appellants have been directed to install EPABX at the premises of the complainant at Kundli and to pay interest @ 18% per annum on Rs. 25364/- from 28.2.92 and further to pay for the damage for the mental harassment and botheration etc, suffered by the complainant on account of non-installation of the Exchange etc.

M/s. Jhalani Tools (India) Ltd., Kundli approached the District Consumer Forum, Sonepat with a grievance that the opposite party M/s. R.J. International, Faridabad had offered to install the Exchange Box with the Computer Card and a subscriber card for 8 lines each with P&T facility and Telephone instruments etc. at their premises at Kundli. Despite, the complainant having paid the necessary advance, the installation was not made. However, later on, though some defective installation was made, but, its apparatus was taken away by the opposite party on 28th February, 1992 for the purpose of repairs which was never returned. It was on that basis the complaint was made before the District Consumer Forum for the issuance of a direction to install necessary apparatus or in the alternative to refund the amount with interest upto date etc. In their reply, the opposite party pleaded that, even though the Engineers along with other staff members had visited the premises of the complainant number of times for the purpose of installation of various instruments, but, as the complainant had failed to clear the balance, the needful was not done. It was further pleaded that despite that, the apparatus was later on installed, which the workmen of the complainantCompany had damaged and spoiled by not following the technical instructions properly.

The learned District Consumer Forum, after considering the matter in detail and after examining the documents produced by the parties came to the conclusion, that the opposite party had failed to install the instrument at the premises of the complainant with or without Power Investor and car-battery etc. due to which the installation did not render efficient service. The learned District Forum, has further found the plea of the opposite party as totally false, when they stated the installation has not been made because the complainant had failed to pay the balance amount towards the cost of the Power Investor and Car battery etc.

IN the appeal before us, the learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently reiterated all the submissions which the appellant-Company had made before the District Consumer Forum, e.g., the complainant was a commercial establishment, the installation was not made because the balance had not been cleared; even though the installation was duly made but its functioning was spoiled and the apparatus was damaged by the staff and other workmen of the company and in any case the compensation was awarded excessive. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and having gone through the detailed and wellreasoned order passed by the learned District Forum, we are of the considered view that there is no legal infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the learned District Consumer Forum. Firstly, the complainant has established on record that the entire payment for the installation of EPABX System had been duly made even in advance and there was no question of any payment outstanding against them. Therefore, the finding of the District Forum that the plea was an afterthought is correct and we agree with the same. So far as the blame for the deficiency in service rendered by the appellant-Company is concerned, which has resulted into improper functioning of the apparatus, there is no evidence what-so-ever on the record that the machinery had been damaged by the workmen or other staff of the complainant company, while using the same. Infact, it had not been installed for a considerable long period and when despite reminder and notices the same was installed, it did not commence functioning properly. Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that there is absolutely no legal infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Sonepat and the compensation has been rightly awarded. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed with no orders as to costs. Appeal dismissed.