OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.NO.658 OF 2007 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II HYDERABAD

Between

K.Dharma Raju C/o P.Satyanarayana
D.No.6-5-359 & 360, New Bhoiguda
Secunderabad

Appellant/complainant

        A N D

1.     Mr.Srinivas S/o Dubbaiah
        Radiant Computers and Peripherals
        Plot No.79, H.No.3-4-253, Kakaguda
        Secunderabad

2.     Illy Marget Paul D/o late Benedict Paul
        Aged 28 years H.No.10-1-690/21
        West Maredpally, Secunderabad

3.     B.Vinod Singh S/o Balaji Singh
        Aged 30 years, R/o Flat No.513,
        Sai Satya Residency Alwal
        Secunderabad.
        (R2 & R3 addes as per orders dt.11.2.2010
          in I.A.No.1929/09)    

                                                                        Respondents/opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellant             Ms Kalpana Kilaru

Counsel for the Respondents                Served

QUORUM:         SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER

&

                            SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

                                TUESDAY THE NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER

                                            TWO THOUSAND TEN

Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
                                        ***

1.     Feeling dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred this appeal.

2.     The factual matrix leading to filing of the appeal is that the complainant purchased computer from the opposite party on 19.10.2006 by availing personal bank loan for `39,900/- but the system supplied to him is not included UPS, Digital Camera and T.V.Tuner card.  The complainant immediately brought the same to the notice of the opposite party but the opposite party did not supply the said items even after request was made for several times.  The opposite party has also collected excess amount more than the market price of the said system.  Due to failure on the part of the opposite party in not supplying the said items the complainant sustained heavy loss.  Hence, the complainant filed complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of `55,000/- towards the loss for non supply of UPS, Digital Camera and Tuner card.

3.     The opposite party resisted the case contending that he is not the proprietor of Radiant Computer Peripherals and he is working as Marketing Executive, employee of the Radiant Computer Peripherals.  The opposite party introduced the complainant to Radiant Computer Peripherals  for purchasing of computer.  The Radiant computer peripherals on 19.10.2006 sent the computer and other parts to the complainant but the complainant did not pay any amount.  As the complainant failed to pay the amount, the Radiant Computer Peripherals deducted the amount every month from the salary of the opposite party.  Hence, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.     The complainant has filed his affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. 

5.     The opposite party no.1 has filed his affidavit.  Exs.B1 to B5 had been marked on behalf of the opposite party no.1.  The oppostie parties no.2 and 3 have been impleaded in the appeal and they have not filed either affidavits or documents. 

6.     The District forum has dismissed the complaint on the premise that the name of the opposite party no.1 is not found in invoice and the manager who issued it has not been added as a party to the proceedings.

7.     The points for consideration are:

1)                Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for?

2)                To what relief?

8.     POINT NO.1        The complainant purchased a system from Radiant Computer Peripherals for a consideration of `39,900/-.  It is the grievance of the complainant that the opposite party no.1 had not supplied UPS, Digital Camera and TV Tuner Card despite the promise made therefor.  In this regard the complainant has submitted that he had approached the District Consumer Information Centre, Padmaraonagar who summoned the opposite party no.1 on 21.3.2006 and the effort proved to be futile.  The complainant claimed a sum of `55,000/-.  The contention of the opposite party is that he is an employee and not proprietor of Radiant Computer Peripherals and his plea is that the complainant had not paid the entire sale consideration of the system.  It is submitted that the complainant has not filed cash receipt and has been enjoying the system without paying the entire amount.

9.     There is no dispute of the fact that the complainant has purchased the system on 19.10.2006 from Radiant Computers Peripherals.  It is not disputed that UPS, Digital Camera and TV Tuner Card have not been supplied by the Radiant Computer Peripherals to the complainant.  The invoice dated 19.10.2006 issued by the Radiant Computers for Rs.39,900/- in favour of the complainant contains the signature of its manager and relying upon this document, the opposite party no.1 contends that he has not issued the invoice nor at any time had he been proprietor of the firm.  The contention of the opposite party no.1 is falsified by the copy of partnership deed dated 23.2.2004 and the reply given by the office of the Commercial Tax Officer, Marredpally Circle, Ameerpet Hyderabad to the application of the complainant that the opposite party no.1 and Lily Margert Paul are the partners of M/s Radiant Computers and Peripherals, Secunderabad.  Though the surname of the opposite party no.1 is not stated in the complaint, his father’s name as shown in the complaint and the partnership deed as also the reply from the office of the Commercial Tax Officer is to the effect that the father of opposite party no.1 is Dubbaih.  Therefore, the opposite party no.1 cannot contend that has no cocern concerned with the affairs of the M/s Radiant Computer Peripherals. 

10.    Admittedly, the three items, UPS, Digital Camera and TV Tuner card have not been supplied by the opposite parties to the complainant in spite of receipt of the amount of `39,900/- which included the cost of UPS, Digital Camera and TV Tuner card.  The complainant has stated that he has purchased the system for the purpose of self employment besides the profits he used to do job with Indian Railways.  Whatever may be the purpose, as the complainant has contended that he could not meet his both ends and had to  support his ailing parents, had purchased the system from the opposite parties which ultimately could not meet the requirement sought for.  Though the opposite parties had contended that the complainant had not paid the entire sale consideration of the system as no cash receipts have been filed, the invoice issued by them belies their contention.  The opposite parties had not supplied the UPS, Digital Camera and T.V.Tuner Card even after collecting the amount from the complainant and thereby the service rendered by them falls short of the standard prescribed therefor. 

11.    In the result the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order dated 30.4.2008 of the District Forum.  The opposite parties no.1 to 3 are directred to supply UPS, Digital Camera and TV Tuner Card and pay compensation of `2,000/- and costs of `1,000/- to the complainant.  Time for compliance four weeks.

                                                                MEMBER

                                                                MEMBER

                                                              09.11.2010

KMK*