CONTINENTAL ERACTORS Vs. MANFRED SIBLAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is by the opposite party No. 2 who supplied the stabilizer to the first respondent-complainant. Second respondent is the manufacturer of the stabilizer and was opposite party No. 1 before the District Forum.

(2.) First respondent purchased on 20.5.1995 stabilizer for Rs. 35,300.75 from the petitioner. It was found that the stabllizer had defects which in turn caused damage to the electrical equipments of the first respondent like air-conditioner, computer, etc. Since the defects were not rectified, complainant approached the District Forum. It is not necessary for us to advert to more facts in the case except to note that it was held by the District Forum that stabilizer was defective which finding was affirmed by the State Commission. It was, therefore, directed that the amount of Rs. 33,300.75 being the cost of the stabilizer be paid to the first respondent with interest @ 18% per annum from 6.12.1995 and an amount of Rs. 2,000 /- was awarded as compensation, Rs. 500/- as costs and Rs. 500/- as Advocate's fee. State Commission in appeal, however, by the petitioner, deleted the award of compensation.

(3.) It was submitted by Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the manufacturer that his client is prepared to replace the stabilizer. During the course of hearing we noted that a cheque of Rs. 15,000/- given by the second respondent to the petitioner for being given to the first respondent-complainant, was dishonoured. Moreover, second respondent has not challenged the order of the District Forum in appeal before the State Commission. Both the petitioner and second respondent held to be severally and jointly liable. We find no ground to interfere with the order of the State Commission in exercise of our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. This revision petition is dismissed. Revision petition dismissed.