AUROKRUTY Vs. SOUVENIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 1st August, 1996 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pondicherry, by which the petitioner, herein, was directed to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 6,189/-.

(2.) THE complainant, respondent in this petition, got installed through the petitioner a transmatic telex system and other electronic computer equipments in his shop. The petitioner undertook by a contract dated 1.6.1993 to maintain the equipment for consideration of Rs. 5,500/-per year. The required amount of Rs. 5,500/-alongwith Rs. 600/-, which, according to the complainant, represented the amount for insurance was paid and received by the petitioner. The equipments was installed on 7th June, 1993. Unfortunately, on the night of the next day, i.e. 8th June, 1993, due to lightening and improper power connection and circuits, the equipments got burnt and the instrument went out of order. The complainant asked the petitioner to undertake repairs and also to check all the electrical items and to arrange for proper power supply. The petitioner provided the stand-by system to the complainant on 12.6.1993. The petitioner repaired the system and charged a sum of Rs. 4,000/- representing the repair and service charges for the transmatic telex system which the petitioner got rectified from parent Company. On account of the strained relations between the parties, the petitioner chose to terminate the contract and claimed Rs. 1,603/-for the period of three-and-half months during which the contract was in force. The petitioner after adjusting the amount of Rs. 1,603/- and another amount of Rs. 1,588-40 Ps. representing the cost of printer, rounded balance of Rs. 2,308.60. He also adjusted the amount of Rs. 600/- meant for insurance against transport charge. The complainant was dissatisfied with the course of action adopted by the petitioner and filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming the following reliefs:

(3.) THE District Forum after considering the material placed on record and hearing the parties, returned the finding that merely paying of Rs. 600/- by the complainant to the petitioner for taking insurance policy would not clothe the petitioner with liability to pay the amount. The amount was paid on 7.6.1993 and the equipment was burnt due to lightening on 8.6.1993. There was nothing on the record to show that he undertook to take insurance coverage for the complainant and the complaint was dismissed.