Back
GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANAJI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. G. Loney, President; Mr. Atanasio Monteiro,
Member; Smt. Subhalakshimi Naik, Member
TAGORE GRACIAS & ANOTHER—Appellants
versus
M/s. ESSEN COMPUTERS LTD.—Respondents
M/s. ESSEN COMPUTERS LTD.—Appellants
versus
TAGORE GRACIAS—Respondent
Appeal Nos. 19 and 31 of 92 — Decided on 24.8.92
For the Appellants :Mr. Noranna, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Lawande, and Mr. Hasmukh Shah, Advocates.
The manufacturer is liable for refunding the purchase price of defective goods under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - SECTION 14 - DEFECTIVE GOODS - MANUFACTURER'S LIABILITY - JURISDICTION - CONSUMER - INTERPRETATION:
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a computer from the local dealer of the manufacturer. The computer was defective and was replaced twice, but the replaced computers were also defective. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking refund of the purchase price and compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered the manufacturer to refund the purchase price with interest and pay compensation. The manufacturer appealed, contending that there was no defect in the computer, that it had no contractual relationship with the complainant, and that the District Forum lacked jurisdiction.
Issues: 1. Whether the computer was defective? 2. Whether there was a contractual relationship between the manufacturer and the complainant? 3. Whether the District Forum had jurisdiction? 4. Whether the complainant was a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court found that the computer was defective based on the fact that it was replaced twice and the complainant's testimony. 2. The court found that there was a contractual relationship between the manufacturer and the complainant based on the invoice, which showed that the order was placed directly with the manufacturer. 3. The court found that the District Forum had jurisdiction because the manufacturer did not file a written version to controvert the complainant's allegations and did not take steps to file another copy of the written version when the first one was not received. 4. The court found that the complainant was a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act because the computer was purchased for personal use.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the manufacturer's appeal and confirmed the order of the District Forum.
Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President - Both the appeals are disposed off by this common order as they arise out of same order of the District Forum dated 23.3.92 passed in complaint No. 249/91. Shortly stated facts are that the complainants who are husband and wife purchased from M/s. Auspicio Rodrigues the local dealer a computer manufactured by M/s. Essen Computers Ltd., for a consideration of Rs. 41740/-. It is alleged in the complaint that the key board as well as the time clock of the computer were not working. Even after the replacement of the keyboard the computer could not be used. The complainant there- fore, filed a complaint on 21.3.1991 before the District Forum. On learning this information the opposite party No. 1 rushed to the residence of the complainant replaced that computer with a new machine. The complainant found that the new machine also having defects in the key-board and the hard disc. It is alleged in the complaint that the replaced computer was also defective. Therefore the complainant filed this complaint in respect of the second replaced computer claiming refund of Rs. 41,740/- and compensation of Rs. 49,000/-.
2. In his written version the local dealer objected to the jurisdiction of the District Forum and also challenged the claim of the complainant. It is also alleged that the computer was purchased for commercial purpose. However, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered the manufacturer to refund the amount of Rs. 41.740/- with interest to the complainant and also ordered the payment of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation for the hardships.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order the manufacturer M/s. Essen Computer Limited preferred an appeal No. 31/92 praying to set aside the impugned order and the complainant preferred counter appeal 19/92 to claim enhanced compensation.
4. We have heard Shri Noronha Advocate for the complainants. Shri Lawande Advocate for Auspicio Rodrigues the local dealer and Shri Hasmukh Shah Advocate for the manufacturer M/s. Essen Computer Limited. We have also gone through the records of the original complaint and heard the respective advocates at long. Shri Shah Advocate for the manufacturer Essen Computer Ltd., submitted that there was defect in the computer and therefore the complaint was not maintainable. We have found that key-board was replaced by the local dealer in the first computer and thereafter the machine was replaced. It further appears that the first computer was obviously defective which required replacement of parts and therefore it was replaced with another machine. The complainant has alleged that this replaced computer was also defective in its functioning as regards the key-board and other parts. The local dealer agreed the replacement and the necessary repairs were carried out to the computer. This facts and circumstances which placed before the District Forum are enough to establish that the replaced computer was also defective and there- fore the submission of Mr. Shah that there was no defect in the computer cannot be accepted.
5. Shri Shah further contended that there was no contract between the manufacturer and the complainant as the order was booked through the local dealer. From the Invoice dated 23.10.90 we find that the order was booked directly with the Essen Computers Limited, Gandhinagar, Gujarat and therefore the submission of Shri Shah that there was no contractual relationship between the complainant and the manufacturer cannot be accepted. Another limb of the argument of Shri Shah is that he was not aware about the defects and therefore why his client should be held liable. According to Shri. Shah the local dealer should be made accountable. During the course of the argument it has been admitted by Shri Shah that Essen Computers Ltd. is the manufacturer of the computer sold to the complainant through local dealer. We have found that the said computer was defective for which the manufacturer is answerable for the defect.
