KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEALNO. 109/2008
JUDGMENT DATED 22.12.2010
PRESENT:-
SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
APPELLANTS
1. M/s. Infomac Systems,
Jijo Building, Opp. Civil Station,
Kalpetta North P.O., Wayanad Dt.
2. Saline @ Jose Saline Thomas,
M/s. Infomac Systems,
Jijo Building, Opp. Civil Station,
Kalpetta North P.O., Wayanad Dt.
3. Sibi Kurian, S/o Kurian,
Partner,
M/s. Infomac Systems,
Jijo Building, Opp. Civil Station,
Kalpetta North P.O., Wayanad Dt.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. P.K. Narayanan)
Vs
RESPONDENT
Ajayakumar M.V. ,
S/o Vasudevan,
Malayil Veedu,
Ambalavayal, Ambalavayal P.O.,
S. Bathery Taluk,
Wayanad Dt.
(Rep. by Adv. Konchira G. Neelakantan Nair)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kalpetta in O.P. No. 4/2003 dated 23.4.2008. The appellants are the opposite parties and respondent is the complainant in the above said O.P.
The appellant prefers this appeal under the order passed by the Forum below by which the appellant/opposite parties are directed to replace the computer and accessories as per the terms and conditions of the quotation. The order further says that the opposite parties if unable to replace the same brand computer, because of the non availability of the same, the opposite parties can take back the computer and other items upon refunding Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant and also directed the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant.
In brief the complainant started an internet café as a means of livelihood, The scheme was meant for unemployed financed by Indian Overseas Bank. The complainant had invited quotations for the supply of computer systems. The opposite party also have submitted the quotation dated; 24..4.2002. Among the quotations the complainant opted the quotations submitted by the opposite parties. The systems were installed on 12.8.2002 and the opposite parties obtained 50% of advance Rs. 1,00,000/- from the Indian Overseas Bank, Sulthan Batheri and the Internet Café was inaugurated and started functioning on 18.8.2002. According to the complainant on the date of installation and also on the date of inauguration, the system did not work properly especially UPS and, all the items mentioned as per the quotations were not supplied though agreed in quotation; and had to be arranged by the complainant himself and thus an amount of Rs. 17,000/- has to be paid by the opposite parties to him. The complainant had mentioned so many defects regarding the function of the computer system. Thus he was not able to run the Internet Café and thereby sustained a total loss of Rs. 3,75,000/- as compensation, price of system and loss of income .
The opposite parties filed their version and admitted that they are the authorized dealers of the company, Compaq Computers, Vayanad District. The concern of the complainant was started with loan of Indian Overseas Bank advanced 50% to the opposite party. The facts are admitted. But the opposite party totally denied the allegations of the complainant that the systems were not working from the date of inauguration and they raised a contention that this dispute does not come within the jurisdiction of the CDRF, Wayanad as the facts alleged has to be decided by an appropriate Civil court since it requires expert evidence and technical analysis. The opposite parties contented that the complainant was fully satisfied with the service of the opposite parties and for the same reason the complainant is not eligible to receive the cheque amount dated 30.8.02. It is a admitted fact that the opposite party received the D.D from the complainant. In order to pave the way for it the letter was send by the complainant to the bank authority for the released of the 2nd installments. Ext. A7 is a letter requesting the Manager Indian Overseas Bank, Sulthan Bathery that D.D. Rs. 1,00,000/- is to be released to the opposite party the letter was Dt. 19.9.2002. It would have done upon the issuance given by the opposite party as averd in Ext. A7. On releasing the above mentioned cheque the opposite parties had issued stop payment letter dated 24.4.2002 as the cheque was not encashable, the complainant issued other legal notices on 30.10.2002. In the said legal notices the only demand was to remit the account as per the cheque. On the same notice the reply was sent and asked to return the cheque to the opposite party. By raised false contentions the cheque was towards the price. Further the complainant filed a criminal case against the ops before the JFCM No.1 Court, Sulthan Batheri under section 138 of the N.I. Act. In the result, the respondents were acquitted. The opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complainant and also to pay compensatory cost for them.
The complainant examined as Pw1 and witness examined as Pw2 and a guest lecturer examined as Pw3. Exts. for the complaint are Exts. A1 to Ext. A17. The opposite parties O.P W1 is the witnesses and marked documents Exts. B1 tp Ext. B9. The expert witness was examined as Cw1 to Cw2 and marked. This documents as C1 to C2 (Series), the Forum below heard both sides and answered the points one by one and has taken a view that the complainant availed the loan for starting an internet cafe and items supplied to the opposite party were not good enough and malfunctioning. The complainant has meet the other expenses along with interest of the loan amount paid by the Bank. The dispute is with regard to the supply of computer and its accessories. The opposite party has to replace articles supplied as per the terms and conditions in the quotation and if the opposite party is not in a position in order to supply the items in the quotation because of the non availability of the same brand, the amount received from the complainant is to be refunded, taking back the item supplied. Hence the Forum below found that the complainant is also entitled for the compensation and costs. And in the result the Forum below passed the above impugned order. This order was challenged by the opposite parties in this appeal.
On this day this appeal came before this commission for final hearing.
Heard both sides and perused the entire evidence available. The counsel for the appellant vehemently argued on the grounds of Appeal Memorandum that the order passed by the Forum below is illegal and hence it is liable to be set aside. But at the same time the counsel for the respondent/appellant argued seriously that there is a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice upon the appellant/opposite parties and as per the evidence adduced by the respondent/complainant, the appellants can not be escape from the liability and negligence committed by them. Due to the act of the opposite parties the complainant sustained huge loss and mental agony.
We are seeing that the Forum below rightly answered all the questions arranged for consideration. We are not seeing any illegality in the order passed by the Forum below. It is legally sustainable. But we are seeing some error in awarding compensation and costs in the result portion of the order of the Forum below. In these circumstances we are interfering in the result portion of the order of the Forum below. We modify the impugned order passed by the Forum below as following.
In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and set aside the order for the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and cost of Rs. 5,000/-. Hence the opposite party is directed to replace the Computer and the accessories as per the terms and conditions of quotation and if the opposite party is unable to procure the items in the quotation because of non availability of the computer, the opposite party can take back the computer and other items upon refunding Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant along with a cost of Rs. 500/- within one month from the date of this order. This appeal is disposed with this modifications and both parties are directed to suffer their respective cost. . The points of the appeal discussed one by one and answered accordingly.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
ST
