H C L LTD Vs. R S SALUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 30th April, 1993 passed by the District Forum, Bilaspur in Case No.190/91.

(2.) The appeal arises out of a complaint filed by respondent No.1 against the appellant and respondent No.2. Briefly, the complainant's case was that the complainant who carries on the business under the name and style of M/s. Saluja Medical Agency had purchased a personal computer manufactured by the appellant from respondent No.2. It was averred that the computer was installed on 8th January, 1991 and a sum of Rs.65,000/- which was its price was paid by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2. It was alleged that the computer was defective and did not operate properly from the first day of its installation and hence when grievance was made by respondent No.1, respondent No.2 agreed to refund the price and paid a cheque for a sum of Rs.49,000/-, but that cheque was dishonoured. The respondent No.1, therefore, filed a complaint for replacement of the defective computer or the refund of its price and compensation. The claim was resisted by the appellant. Respondent No.2 did not contest the claim. The main ground on which the claim of the respondent No.1 was resisted by the appellant was that the computer was supplied and installed by respondent No.2, that the appellant was unaware of any agreement between respondent Nos.1 and 2 for refund of its price and, therefore, the appellant could not be held liable to pay any amount to respondent No.1. The District Forum found that on a complaint being made by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 about the defective working of the computer, it was replaced by respondent No.2 and when even the replaced computer was not operating properly, respondent No.2 entered into an agreement with respondent No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.49,000/- in satisfaction of the claim of respondent No.1. The District Forum, therefore, held that the appellant was liable along with respondent No.2 to pay a sum of Rs.49,000/- to the complainant. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has filed this appeal.

(3.) The main contention advanced on behalf of the appellant was neither the first computer nor the replaced one was installed by the authorised engineer of the appellant, that respondent No.2 alone had entered into an agreement with respondent No.1 for settlement of the claim and that no liability could be fastened on the appellant. In reply it was contended that the computer was manufactured by the appellant, that respondent No.2 was its dealer and that respondent No.1 was entitled to relief against the appellant as well, as granted by the District Forum.