Back
GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANAJI
Mr. J.N. Prabhudessai & Mrs. Sandra Vaz e Correia, Members
KIRAN DESSAI—Appellant
versus
ZENITH COMPUTERS LTD.—Respondent
Appeal No. 9 of 2002—Decided on 28.9.2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. A. Dessai, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. B. Narayan, Advocate.
Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d) - Consumer - Complainant-appellant purchased Zenith Super PC x T System comprising T-1 microlaser for Rs. 1,64,000/- - Complaint alleging deficiency in service in non-supply of consumable spares - Dist. Forum dismissed complaint on ground that system was purchased for commercial purposes - Appeal - Purchase of system for earning livelihood by means of self employment would bring applicant within definition of Consumer - Mere fact that complainant was seeking assistance of two helpers would not disentitle her from claiming relief under the Act.(Para 11)
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12 and 17 - Unfair trade practice and deficiency in service - Complainant purchased computer system - Opp. party assured complainant that it had ready stock of spares to provide service for system - Due to non-supply of toner, system remained idle from April 1993 - Complainants order for supply to toner, drum and drum cleaning was not fulfilled - Defence plea that after expiry of one year warranty period complainant had failed to enter into any annual maintenance contract - Complainant had asked for only supply of consumables and spares - Conduct of opponent in refusing to supply spares and consumables amounted to unfair trade practice coupled with deficiency in service - Complainant-appellant held entitled to compensation at Rs. 1180 p.m. which system had earlier earned approximately to complainant from May, 1993 till supply of consumables - Rs. 25,000/- awarded compensation for mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- allowed as cost of litigation.(Paras 16, 17, 20 and 21)
Result : Appeal allowed.
IMPORTANT POINT
Conduct of manufacturer of machine system in refusing to supply spares and consumables on pretext of Annual Maintenance Contract would amount to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service.
Mrs. Sandra Vaz e Correia, Member—The appellant has assailed the order dated 28.1.2002 made by District Forum, North Goa, in Complaint No. 227/1994 whereby her complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents was dismissed.
2. The appellant is the complainant and the respondent is the opposite party before the District Forum. Parties shall be referred to as arrayed before the District Forum for convenience.
3. The factual matrix of the complainant’s case as seen from the records can be stated thus:
4. The complainant purchased a Zenith Super PC x T System comprising T-1 micro laser for Rs. 1,64,000/- in January 1991. Certain terms and conditions were settled between the parties by letter dated 14.1.1991. The said system remained idle from 25.4.1993 on account of non-supply of toner. The complainant issued a letter to the opposite party dated 20.5.1993 for supply of one cartridge of toner for the microlaser of the said system. In view of the non-supply of the said part, the complainant issued a reminder dated 25.8.1993. In its reply dated 29.9.1993, the opposite party informed the complainant that the toner was not available and they were not in position to supply it. The complainant reminded the opposite party of the commitment made by them as regards the availability and supply of spare and consumables for the said T-I microlaser by her letter dated 21.10.1993. As there was no response, the complainant by her letter dated 25.11.1993 placed a firm order on the opposite party for the supply of spares, namely drum and drum cleaning assembly. This was followed up by more correspondence. However, the opposite party issued a reply dated 21.1.1994 and made baseless allegations against the complainant and demanded Rs. 5,000/- as inspection charges.
5. The system remained idle from April 1993 till date.
6. The complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite party dated 15.4.1994 and calling upon the opposite party to pay damages quantified at Rs. 50,000/-.
7. The complainant claimed damages calculated at Rs. 200/- per day from 25.5.1993 till payment and further damages of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and harassment.
8. Per contra, the opposite party contended that the complaint was not maintainable as the computer system has been utilized for commercial purpose. It was also contended that the complaint was filed belatedly beyond the period of limitation. The computer system was purchased in January, 1991 with twelve months warranty period. On expiry of warranty period, the complainant was approached for entering into annual maintenance contract which was turned down by the Complainant. The letter dated 19.2.1991 was denied as being a contract. It was reiterated that the system was installed in January, 1991 and the warranty expired by end of December, 1991. The complainant had not paid for the spares and consumables and, therefore, there was no contract of service.
9. The District Forum after considering the evidence on record and submissions of the parties dismissed the complaint on the ground that the computer system had been purchased for commercial purposes. The Forum was also of the view that the allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice had not been proved.
10. We have perused the records of the trial proceedings in minute detail and considered the written arguments of the parties.
11. We do not agree with the finding of the District Forum that the complainant was not a consumer as the goods have been bought for commercial purpose. The law on this point has been settled by the Apex Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)=1995 AIR SC 2114. The Court ruled that a person who buys goods and uses them himself exclusively for purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment is within the definition of expression “consumer”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court gave illustrations to bring home the point and emphasized that even if such a person ta
