Back
KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE
Honble Mr. Justice D.R. Vithal Rao, President &
Mrs. Susheela Cheluvaraju, Member
NAVODAYA VIDYANIKETHAN & ANR.—Complainants
versus
M/s. KEONIC MAGNAVISION—Opp. Party
Complaint No. 293 of 1992 — Decided on 15.10.1996
In a consumer protection case, the complainant must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 17, 12 - SALE OF GOODS - DEFECTIVE COMPUTER - COMPLAINT - DISMISSED - EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE DEFECTIVE COMPUTER.
Fact of the Case:
The complainants, an educational institution, purchased a computer from the opposite party and made an advance payment. The computer was to be supplied in June 1991 but was delivered in May 1992 after further payment. The complainants alleged that the computer supplied was different from the one inspected and that it was not working satisfactorily. The opposite party denied these allegations and claimed that the computer supplied was the same as the one inspected and that it was functioning satisfactorily.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainants failed to substantiate their grievances. The evidence presented by the complainants was insufficient to prove that the computer supplied by the opposite party was defective or that it was different from the one inspected.
Issues: 1. Whether the computer supplied by the opposite party was defective? 2. Whether the computer supplied was different from the one inspected?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainants failed to prove that the computer supplied by the opposite party was defective or that it was different from the one inspected. The court noted that the complainants had made a police complaint against the opposite party for cheating, but that the complaint was closed. The court also noted that the evidence presented by the complainants was insufficient to prove their claims.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the complaint.
Mr. Justice D.R. Vithal Rao, President — In this complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainants have sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,12,611/- with interest thereon from the opposite party.
2. The complainants, an educational institution, purchased a Computer from the opposite party and made payment of an advance amount of Rs. 21,135/- on 18.4.1991. The opposite party was to supply the said Computer in the month of June, 1991 itself but it could not do. Subsequently in the month of March, 1992 further discussion took place, escalation in the price of the Computer was agreed to be paid by the complainants and the opposite party supplied the Computer to the complainants on 19.5.1992 on receipt of further payment of a sum of Rs. 74,480/- from the complainants. The complainants before taking delivery of the said Computer, inspected said Computer in the office premises of the opposite party on 13.5.1992.
3. It is the grievance of the complainants that subsequently it was found that the Computer supplied by the opposite party to the complainants was different than the one inspected by the complainants at the premises of the opposite party on 13.5.1992. The complainants found that the said Computer was not working satisfactorily and so made claim with the opposite party to pay back the value of the Computer paid by them and take back the Computer. But the opposite party failed to do so. So they filed a complaint with the police against the opposite party for having cheated the complainants and thereafter filed the complaint seeking compensation from the opposite party.
4. The opposite party filed its version, admitted the fact that the complainants had purchased a Computer from it as averred by them. The opposite party further averred that the complainants inspected the said computer and thereafter the said Computer was delivered at the premises of the complainants' institution and installed. The opposite party nextly averred that the allegation that the said Computer was not the Computer that was inspected by them on 13.5.1992 at the premises of the opposite party, were not true. It averred that the same Computer was supplied and installed by the opposite party and it was satisfactorily functioning. The avermerit that it was not satisfactorily working and functioning was incorrect and untrue. On the basis of these averments, the opposite party sought the complaint to be dismissed.
5. During enquiry the complainants examined the Secretary of the Institution as CW 1 and got Exs. C 1 to C 19 marked in evidence. The complainants also examined CW 2 Chala Muttu, who had inspected the Computer at the premises of the opposite party on 13.5.1992.
6. The opposite party filed the affidavit of the Managing Director of the opposite party-Company and got Exs. R 1 to R 9 marked in evidence.
7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the opposite party, perused the pleadings and the material on record.
8. The main grievance of the complainants is that the Computer that was supplied and installed at the premises of the complainants-institution by the opposite party was a different Computer that was inspected and approved by the complainants on 13.5.1992 at the premises of the opposite party.
9. Another grievance of the complainants is that the said Computer supplied by the opposite party was not satisfactorily functioning.
10. The opposite party denied both these aspects and averred that the Computer supplied to the complainants was the same that was inspected and approved by the complainants at the premises of the opposite party on 13.5.1992 and that the said Computer was satisfactorily functioning.
11. The complainants have stated that with regard to the supply of the different Computer by the opposite party that was inspected and approved, the complainants had made a police complaint and the police had registered a case against the opposite party. The complainants in this regard had averred in
