UMESH CHANDER SHARMA vs RAJESH ELECTRONICS

BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant Shri Umesh Chander Sharma, obtained the quotations from respondent No. 1 for purchasing a colour T.V., V.C.R. and Refrigerator. Respondent No. 2 is the proprietor of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 3 is its Gen. Manager. The respondents quoted the price of the 3 items as Rs. 36,450/-.

THE complainant took a loan of Rs. 27,000/- from the State Bank of India, Saket Branch, New Delhi under ''Big Buy Scheme'' and deposited an amount of Rs. 9,450/- from his pocket with the Bank for payment of Rs. 36,450/- to respondent No. 1. THE Bank sent a cheque of Rs. 36,450/- to the respondents with a direction, that they should supply the aforesaid 3 items to the complainant. It is alleged that the respondents got the cheque of the Bank encashed on 8.3.90, but did not supply the said items to the complainant. It is further stated that the Bank had been charging interest @ 16.5% with quarterly rests from the complainant on the amount of loan. He has been repaying the loan in instalments and has repaid Rs. 22,000/- upto January, 1992. Consequently, it is prayed that the respondent be directed to refund Rs. 36,450/- with interest @ 16.5% pay Rs. l4,000/- on account of increase in the price of the electronic goods and Rs. 17,000/- by way of damages for mental tension, harassment etc. On 20th November, 1991, Mr. Parveen Gupta, respondent No. 3 appeared before the Commission and stated that he represented the other two respondents also. He was handed over a copy of the complaint. The case was adjourned for written statement to 11th Dec ''91.On llth December, 1991 Shri Parveen stated that the written statement could not be prepared on account of some tragic mishappening in the family. He was granted time to file the written statement on 28th December, 1991 subject to payment of Rs. 100/- costs. On 28th December, 1991 Mrs. Oberoi Advocate Counsel for the complainant represented that the Counsel for the respondents talked to her about settlement of the complainant claim. She requested for some time to discuss the matter with him. It is relevant to mention that no one had appeared on that day for the respondent. The case was adjourned to 15th January, 1992.

On 15th January, 1992 Shri Ashok Gulati, Advocate appeared for the respondent before the Commission and requested for further time to file the written statement. The case was adjourned to 27th January, 1992. On 27.1.92 no one appeared on behalf of the respondent. Consequently they were proceeded against ex-parte. The complainant in support of the complaint has produced his affidavit.

WE have gone through the complaint, and the affidavit filed by the complainant. The affidavits supports the allegations made in the complaint. From the aforesaid affidavit, it is established that an amount of Rs. 36,450/- was paid by the State Bank of India to the respondents by a cheque which was got encashed by respondent No. 1. However, the three items namely colour T.V., V.C.R. and refrigerator were not delivered by the complainant. Consequently, the complainant has become entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 36,450/- from them. The complainant has stated in the affidavit that the amount of Rs. 27,000/- has been advanced by the Bank to him on interest @ 16.5% p.a. with quarterly rests. He has further stated that the rate of interest has been enhanced by the State Bank of India to 19.5% p.a. w.e.f. January, 1992, that he has been repaying the amount by instalments and that he has repaid Rs. 22,000/- to the Bank upto January, 1992. If the complainant is allowed simple interest @ 18% p.a., we think he will be amply compensated. Consequently, we allow interest to him @ 18% p.a. from 8.3.90 upto the date of filing the complaint i.e., 21st September, 1991. The amount of interest for 1 year 6 months and 14 days comes to Rs. 7,480/-.

THE complainant has further claimed Rs. 11,500/- by way of difference of the items as existed at the time of placing the order and as they exist now. He has produced quotation of these 3 items from the dealers. Radio Electric Emporium has given the quotations of 2 items namely TV. Onida and Refrigerator Godrej as Rs. 26,115/- and Anil Radio & Electric for V.C.R. of Beltek make as Rs. 22,000/-. Both these quotation are dated 11th September, 1991. Taking into consideration these quotations we grant Rs. 11,500/- to the complainant on account of increase in the price of these 3 items. THE complainant has also claimed damages from the respondent on account of mental tension etc. THE complainant has been granted interest on the principal amount and difference in prices of the T.V. etc. We think that the complainant has been amply compensated. Consequently, we are not inclined to grant any further amount by way of damages. For the aforesaid reasons we partly accept the complaint with cost and direct the respondent to pay Rs. 55,430.00 with interest @ 18% p.a. from 21.9.91 till the date of payment. Costs Rs. 1,000/-. The respondents should pay the aforesaid amount within a period of two months from the date of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to recover the amount under the Consumer Protection Act. Complaint partly accepted. _________________