MODI BUSINESS MACHINES Vs. BELL CERAMICS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Bell Ceramics Ltd. , hereinafter referred to as the complainant, purchased from M/s. Modi Business Machines, opposite party. Modi Olievetti Alfa Typewriter on 11.3.1992. The opposite party is stated to have assured the complainant that the said typewriter could be interfaced with the complainant's existing computer PC-XT to serve as a Letter Quality Printer. On 6.8.1992 the opposite party sent its Customer Support Engineer one Mr. Aditya Jain for doing the interface and giving a demonstration. When the said engineer connected the typewriter with the PC and switched on the power, there was sparking as a result of which both the typewriter as well as the PC stoped working. The typewriter was repaired free of cost and it was agreed between the parties that the PC would be repaired at the expense of the opposite party from M/s. Pushka Electronics Pvt. Ltd. The case of the complainant was that in spite of several reminders the said repairer failed to undertake the repairs and, accordingly, the PC was brought back and got repaired from another repairer called M/s. Computer Way at the cost of Rs.17,400/-. The complainant put forward a claim for the recovery of the said repair charges together with Rs.30,000/- on account of the loss of date already fed into the computer which was lost. The plea of the opposite party was that only typewriter was sold. No assurance was given that the same could be interfaced with the existing computer of the complainant. It was only as a gesture of goodwill that the opposite party agreed to repair the typewriter and have the PC repaired. The time agreed for carrying out the repair was one week. The complainant, however, did not wait for the same and brought back the computer unrepaired. According to M/s. Pushka Electronics Pvt. Ltd. repair would have cost Rs.5,000/- to 6,000/- and, therefore, the bill for Rs.17,400/- was unjustified and the opposite party was not liable to pay the same. In the alternative, it was pleaded that, in fact, the complainant had got the PC upgraded and updated and had thereby tried to secure an undue advantage to, which they had no right. On a consideration of the material before it D. F.-II upheld the stand of the complainant and rejected the pleas of the opposite party and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.17.400/- spent on the repairs of the PC from 1.11.1992, the date of payment besides Rs.5,000/- as compensation with interest @ 18% p. a. and compensation. Aggrieved by the order, the opposite pa-ty has preferred this appeal, alongwith an application for condonation of delay.

(2.) None appeared for the appellant when the appeal came up for hearing. In fact, except at the time of admission of the appeal on 20.12.1995, none appeared for the appellant on four dates including today. We have heard Mr. A. N. Ditya, Counsel for the respondent and have carefully gone through the records.

(3.) The order of District Forum is dated 21.7.1995. According to the appellant itself certified copy was received on 13.8.1995 and the present appeal was preferred on 27.11.1995. The reason for the delay is stated to be that the appellant Company has been declared a sick unit and it had been taken over by DSIDC and the office of the appellant Company had been lying closed with no staff being present there. In the facts of the case, it was for the Company to have made arrangements so that urgent papers relating to the Company could be attended to without undue delay. In the facts pleaded we do not think that any ground for condonation of delay has been made out. The application for condonation of delay is, therefore, dismissed and the appeal is liable to fail on this short ground.