ARUNODAYA PRINTERS Vs. MEHTA COMPUTERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT was the complainant before the State Commission where a complaint was filed by her alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, M/s. Mehta Computers.

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary to understand the case are that the complainant being a woman entrepreneur wanted to set up a small scale unit for Desk Top Printing requiring computer(s) for the purpose. Orders for two personal computers (PCS) along with a certain configuration software and accompanying items was placed by the complainant with the respondent for Rs. 4.50 lakhs. On receipt of these items, the complainant did not find the computers with the requisite specifications and non -supply of certain material. One PC, taken back for improvement and return, was never given back. The grounds for filing complaints also included over charging of price, non -supply of air -conditioner, chairs/tables for keeping the computers. Thus alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite party, a complaint was filed by the complainant before the State Commission praying for following reliefs.

(3.) ,74,704/ - (Rs. Four lakhs, seventy four thousand and seven hundred and four) 4. As per record the respondent neither filed written version in spite of notice nor any affidavit by way of evidence before the State Commission in spite of opportunity having been given to him. When the case was closed by the State Commission on 1.11.1993 preliminary objections were filed by the respondent stating that the complainant is not a consumer as the whole transaction was for commercial purpose and also it is a case of settling of account and is not a consumer dispute. Taking these objections into consideration, the State Commission held the complainant not to be consumer within the meaning spelled out in the Act, and mentioned in passing that since non -supply of second computer is a breach of contract, compensation for breach of contract cannot be sought under Consumer Protection Act. The case of excessive price was also not found to be proved. Based on all these reasoning, complaint was dismissed. It is in these circumstances that an appeal has been filed before us. The respondent remained absent in spite of notice issued by the Commission and also by way of substituted service in the newspaper, hence is being proceeded ex parte.