Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President; Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt &
Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor Members
V.B. COMPUTER ENTERPRISES (P) LTD..—Appellant
versus
MOHAN SINGH & ORS.—Respondents
Appeal Case No. 244 of 2001—Decided on 5.3.2002

Advocates:
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Rajesh Khurana, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3: None.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the liability of the appellant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the distinction between the roles of different parties in a consumer dispute.

Headnote:
Consumer Dispute - Liability of Appellant - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 12, Section 14, Section 21 - The court discussed the liability of the appellant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, specifically focusing on the definitions of 'consumer', 'complaint', 'deficiency in service', and 'unfair trade practice' as per Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o), 2(1)(r), and the provisions related to jurisdiction, procedure, and powers of the consumer forums under Sections 12, 14, and 21. The court's decision was influenced by its interpretation of the appellant's role as a dealer and the complainant's dealings with the other respondents, ultimately setting aside the liability of the appellant but confirming the liability of the other respondents.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant appealed against an order holding them liable to refund a sum of money along with interest and pay costs to the complainant for non-delivery of a computer. The appellant argued that their liability was wrongly fastened by the District Forum-II.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant cannot be held guilty of deficiency in services as they had performed their part as a dealer in forwarding the booking order and the money paid by the complainant to the other respondents. The court set aside the liability of the appellant but confirmed the liability of the other respondents.
Issues: The main issue was the liability of the appellant in the non-delivery of the computer and the refund of the amount deposited by the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the appellant's role as a dealer and the complainant's dealings with the other respondents, ultimately setting aside the liability of the appellant but confirming the liability of the other respondents.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the liability of the appellant but confirming the liability of the other respondents.

ORDER

Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President—This is an appeal filed by V.B. Computer Enterprises (P) Ltd., arrayed as O.P. No. 3 in the complaint Case No. 33 of 2000, against order dated 3.7.2001 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum-II).

2. The District Forum-II proceeded ex parte against all the O.Ps. including the appellant. By the impugned order, the complaint was allowed and a direction was issued to O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 and the appellant to pay the amount of Rs. 47,495/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till refund and also allowed a costs of Rs. 1,100/-.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rajesh Khurana, Advocate contended that the liability of the appellant has been wrongly fastened by the District Forum-II along with O.P. Nos. 1 and 2, who have been arrayed as respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Pertech Computers Limited, SCO Nos. 451-452, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh and Pertech Computers Limited, having its registered office at FD-254, Salt Lake, City Calcutta (West Bengal), to refund the aforesaid amount and to pay the costs to the complainant. Mr. Rajesh Khurana, Advocate submitted that the complainant had booked a PCL (computer) P-100 with the appellant on 8.2.1997 and paid a sum of Rs. 45,995/-. The appellant/O.P. No. 3 forwarded the order of booking of the PCL along with the amount deposited, to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3/O.P. Nos. 1 and 2, who did not deliver the PCL computer and delayed the same. Consequently the complainant/respondent No. 1 approached the respondent Nos. 2 and 3/O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 for the refund of the amount together with interest.

4. The notice of appeal was served on respondents. Only respondent No. 1/complainant put in appearance through Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not put in appearance despite service.

5. The record of the complaint case was summoned from the District Forum-II. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1/complainant.

6. A perusal of Annexures C-1 and C-2, which are letters written by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3/O.P. Nos. 1 and 2, acknowledging the receipt of a sum of Rs. 45,995/- as advance against the order and thanked the complainant for choosing PCL as the computer vendor. These two documents i.e., Annexures C-1 and C-2, leave no room for doubt that the appellant/O.P. No. 2, the dealer had duly forwarded the booking order as well as the money deposited by the complainant to respondent Nos. 2 and 3/O.Ps. Nos. 1 and 2. Apart from this, a copy of letter dated 31.3.1997 (Annexure C-3) sent by PCL to S. Mohan Singh, shows that certain formalities were to be complied with regarding the supply of the PCL computer, which were duly complied with and delivery acceptance form signed by the complainant/respondent was sent, which has been annexed with Annexure C-3. Vide letter dated 8th August, 1997 (Annexure C-4), the Pertech Computer Ltd. wrote to the complainant that they will take about two more months’ time to deliver the machine or refund the complainant’s money in case he wishes to cancel his order.

7. A perusal of Annexure C-5, letter written by the complainant/respondent No. 1 to the Pertech Computer Ltd. which is dated 29.8.1997 will go to show that the order was cancelled and refund of the amount deposited was prayed for. These documents clearly show that the complainant was dealing with the respondent Nos. 2 and 3/O.P. Nos. 1 and 2, Pertech Computers, Chandigarh and Pertech Computers Ltd., Calcutta, West Bengal. In none of the communications, even copy was sent to appellant/O.P. No. 3 Sh. Mohan Singh filed his affidavit and in the affidavit also he referred to the documents referred to above and deposed in Para 10 about the deficiency in services rendered to the complainant and unfair trade practice, firstly by not delivering the computer in time and thereafter i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis