UMESH CHANDER SHARMA Vs. RAJESH ELECTRONICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly the facts are that the complainant Shri Umesh Chander Sharma, obtained the quotations from respondent No.1 for purchasing a colour T. V. , V. C. R. and Refrigerator. Respondent No.2 is the proprietor of respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 is its Gen. Manager. The respondents quoted the price of the 3 items as Rs.36,450/-.

(2.) The complainant took a loan of Rs.27,000/- from the State Bank of India, Saket Branch, New Delhi under 'big Buy Scheme' and deposited an amount of Rs.9,450/- from his pocket with the Bank for payment of Rs.36,450/- to respondent No.1. The Bank sent a cheque of Rs.36,450/- to the respondents with a direction, that they should supply the aforesaid 3 items to the complainant. It is alleged that the respondents got the cheque of the Bank encashed on 8.3.90, but did not supply the said items to the complainant. It is further stated that the Bank had been charging interest @ 16.5% with quarterly rests from the complainant on the amount of loan. He has been repaying the loan in instalments and has repaid Rs.22,000/- upto January, 1992. Consequently, it is prayed that the respondent be directed to refund Rs.36,450/- with interest @ 16.5% pay Rs. l4,000/- on account of increase in the price of the electronic goods and Rs.17,000/- by way of damages for mental tension, harassment etc.

(3.) On 20th November, 1991, Mr. Parveen Gupta, respondent No.3 appeared before the Commission and stated that he represented the other two respondents also. He was handed over a copy of the complaint. The case was adjourned for written statement to 11th Dec '91. On llth December, 1991 Shri Parveen stated that the written statement could not be prepared on account of some tragic mishappening in the family. He was granted time to file the written statement on 28th December, 1991 subject to payment of Rs.100/- costs. On 28th December, 1991 Mrs. Oberoi Advocate Counsel for the complainant represented that the Counsel for the respondents talked to her about settlement of the complainant claim. She requested for some time to discuss the matter with him. It is relevant to mention that no one had appeared on that day for the respondent. The case was adjourned to 15th January, 1992.