WIPRO LIMITED Vs. TOPPERS MULTIMEDIA (P) LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the order dated 30.08.2004 of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (in short, the State Commission ) by Wipro Limited (formerly known as Wipro Infotech Limited), which was one of the opposite parties in the complaint case/original petition no. 31/1998 before the State Commission. By this order, the State Commission held the appellant/opposite parties (OPs) no. 1 and 2 and OP no. 4 (M/s Sun Multimedia) guilty of supplying a defective package of computer hardware to the original complainant (respondent no.1 in this appeal) and directed them to take back the defective package of equipment and refund the sum of Rs.8,30,855/- with interest thereon @ 12 per cent per annum from 01.12.1998 till payment, and also pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service leading to loss and mental harassment and a cost of Rs.5,000/-, within two months from the date of the order.

(2.) The brief facts are that M/s Toppers Multimedia Private Limited, the original complainant, purchased in October, 1996 a set of computer hardware (consisting of 9 items, for a total cost of Rs.8, 30,855/-) from M/s Sun Multimedia (which was arrayed in the complaint as OP no. 4). The main hardware, brand-named Macintosh, was the product of M/s Apple Computers International Limited, which was OP no. 3 before the State Commission. The warranty card, displaying the business logos of both M/s Apple Computers International Limited and M/s Wipro Infotech Limited, was issued under the signature of an Engineer of M/s Wipro Infotech Limited and was valid up to 31.01.1998. The complainant purchased the hardware for a business purpose, i.e., running a training course on commercial basis in arrangement with M/s Aptech India Limited at the complainant s centre at Bangalore. At the relevant time, the appellant was the marketing agent and after-sales service provider for the said brand of computer hardware, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty mentioned above.

(3.) The complainant alleged that from the very first month of operation of the computer hardware supplied by OP no. 4 (respondent no. 3), there were several breakdowns, resulting in frequent disruptions in running the training course. This caused the complainant much financial loss due to loss of working hours as well as damage to its reputation, which caused its Directors and management/teaching personnel considerable mental agony. Thus alleging that OP no. 4 had supplied computer equipment with manufacturing defects and that the appellant (OPs no. 1 and 2) had repeatedly failed to rectify the said defects, the complainant claimed compensation/payment of Rs.14,27,797/- on various grounds with interest @ 18% per annum. The OPs contested the complaint denying all material allegations and urging, in particular, that the complaint was not maintainable ab initio because the equipment were purchased by the complainant for an admittedly commercial purpose and hence the complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of the term under section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereafter, the Act ). After hearing the parties and considering the evidence and documents produced on record, the State Commission, however, passed the impugned order, as noticed above.