HUMMINGBIRD AUTOMATION TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD Vs. D THANIGAIYELAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) XThis appeal has been filed by the appellant Hummingbird Automation Technologies Pvt. Ltd. against the order of State Commission allowing the complaint against the appellant.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the Complainant D. Thanigaivalan purchased a computer from the appellant against 100% payment by cheque for Rs. 1,32,000/-. Admittedly, there was short supply of colour monitor and certain other accessories while the computer was installed with the complainant. When after exchange of correspondence the complainant was not successful in getting the colour monitor and other accessories he approached the State Commission who after hearing both the parties directed the petitioner to refund the price of computer i.e. Rs. 1,32,000/- along with interest @ 15% from 14.11.1992 till the date of payment and cost of Rs. 1,500/-. It is against this order that the appellant has filed this appeal.

(3.) It is argued by learned Counsel for the appellant that the complainant is not a "consumer" as the purchase was for a commercial purpose as the complainant is a Managing Partner of the firm i.e. a small scale industry. It was also stated by him that time was not the essence of the contract. The State Commission was not able to pin-point any negligence on the part of the appellant. There was no negligence on the part of the appellant as colour monitor was not forthcoming from the supplier, Sterling Computers Ltd. Having accepted the installation of the computer the complainant was estopped from raising any claim later on. The State Commission also erred in not directing the complainant to return the computer. The State Commission misread the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC). On the other hand, it was argued by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the order of the State Commission is as per law and is based on correct facts and law laid down on the subject. He had purchased the computer for self-employment purpose as part of a small scale industry. Failure of the complainant not to supply colour monitor is a deficiency in service. The appellant cannot get away from it. There is nothing wrong with the reasoned order of the State Commission which must be upheld. Appeal needs to be dismissed with costs.