STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                   UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                       APPEAL NO. 988 OF 1996

              (Against judgment and order dated 19-07-1993 in Complaint

             Case No. 315/1992 of the District Consumer Forum, Jhansi )

M/s. City Computer

M. G. Road, Near Anjana Cinema

District Agra

Through its Partner Sri Parvendra Vasu

S/o Late D. S. Vasu

                                                                                         ...Appellant

                                                           Vs.

1. Commissioner, Jhansi
2. Sachiv, Buldelkhand Vikas Pradhikaran

Jhansi

3. Sri Dhananjay Prasad

Engineer, Communication Division

H.C.L. Limited, New Delhi

4. M/s. H.C.L. Limited

801. Deepali, 92, Nehru Place, New Delhi

                                                                                                ...Respondents

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE MRS. BAL KUMARI, MEMBER

For the Appellant                 :    Sri M H Khan, Advocate.

For the Respondent              :    None appeared                 

Dated : 03-03-2017

                                                  JUDGMENT

          PER MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

By means of this appeal under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 appellant City Computers who is opposite party of complaint No. 575 of 1992, Commissioner Jhansi Division and another V/s City Computers and others has assailed judgment and order dated 19-07-1993 passed by District Consumer Forum, Jhansi in said complaint on following grounds:-

1. That the value of complaint was above pecuniary jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum. As such judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum is without jurisdiction and against law.

:2:

2. That the appellant is dealer whereas the installation of machine has been done by engineer of the company opposite party no.3. As such appellant/opposite party cannot be held responsible for any deficiency arising out of installation.
3. That the impugned judgment and order is erroneous and against law.

Mr. M H Khan, learned Counsel for the appellant appeared.

None appeared for respondent.

We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant. We have perused impugned judgment and order as well as records.

In brief relevant facts are that complainant Commissioner Jhansi Division purchased a EPABX (Exchange Intercom System) manufactured by respondent/opposite party no.4 from appellant/opposite party on payment of Rs.1,29,300/-. This system was to be installed in the office of Commissioner and was installed accordingly but could not function properly. Complainant Commissioner further made a maintenance agreement with opposite party/respondent no.4 on payment of Rs.10,400/- for the period extending from 30-11-1991 to 29-11-1992. Even then the system could not function.

Learned Counsel for appellant/opposite party has contended that the system has not worked properly due to earthing problem. He has further contended that installation work has been done by respondent/opposite party no.2 who was employed by company respondent/opposite party no.3 and the problem of earthing might have been removed at the time of installation by opposite party no.2. Appellant/opposite party has no role in installation. The District Consumer Forum has wrongly ordered appellant/opposite party to make system functional by removing defect of earthing.

We have considered submission made by learned Counsel for the appellant.

Indisputably appellant has supplied Exchange Intercom System to respondent/complainant for Rs.1,29,300/- for installation in the office of respondent/complainant. No further payment has been charged for

:3:

installation. As such it is obvious that installation charges were included in the above payment received by appellant/opposite party and appellant/opposite party is also responsible for proper installation and proper functioning of system. He cannot escape himself.

After having gone through facts of the case we are of the view that the District Consumer Forum has rightly ordered appellant/opposite party to make system functional by removing defect of earthing.

With effect from 18-06-1993 the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum has been raised to rupees not exceeding five lacs whereas impugned judgment is dated 19-07-1995. As such it is obvious that District Consumer Forum was competent to pass impugned judgment and order on the date of judgment.

Opposite parties no. 2 and 3 of complaint who are respondents no. 3 and 4 in this appeal have not challenged judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum by filing appeal.

In view of discussion made above we find no sufficient ground to disturb judgment of District Consumer Forum. Appeal has no merit and is dismissed accordingly.

Let copy of this order be made available to the parties within 15 days positively as per rules.

                                                               ( JUSTICE A H KHAN )

                                                                                PRESIDENT

                                                                ( SMT. BAL KUMARI )

                                                                                    MEMBER

          Pnt.