SAKSHYAM SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SADHNA RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) District Forum, Jalandhar on April 17, 1998 allowed the complaint filed by Smt. Sadhna Rana w/o R. P. S. Rana with the direction to the opposite parties M/s. P. C. S. Data General (India) Limited and M/s. Sakshyam Services Private Limited to refund Rs.99,470/- with 18% interest from the date of receipt of the aforesaid amount upto its return alongwith costs of Rs.1,000/-. The present appeal has been filed by M/s. Sakshyam Services Private Limited. The complainant is the respondent so is the M/s. P. C. S. Data General (India) Limited, the opposite party. The prayer in appeal is for setting aside the impugned order against the appellant alongwith costs.

(2.) On November 15, 1994, the complainant Sadhna Rana placed an order with the appellant, opposite party No.2, for supply of original 486 DX Computer with 8 MB RAM as described in para 2 of the complaint against price of Rs.92,970/-. The order was placed on the representation of Ashwani Sondhi, a Director of opposite party No.2 and an authorised dealer of opposite party No.1 M/s. P. C. S. Data General (India) Limited. The opposite party No.2 was to provide service at Jalandhar where the computer was to be installed. The contract was accompanied by a warranty of one year. A sum of Rs.1 lac was paid by Bank Draft drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jalandhar. Again an amount of Rs.29,290/- was paid. The advance amount was paid by bank draft drawn on 8.12.1994 and the balance was paid in cash at the time of delivery at Jalandhar. Mr. Ashwani Sondhi himself delivered the computer at Jalandhar. He also got it installed. In December, 1994, he brought one Black and White Monitor instead of a Colour one. MS DOS 6.2 was not installed and these defects were pointed out to Mr. Ashwani Sondhi. He promised to bring his Engineer at Jalandhar, however, no-one came upto January, 1995. Thus, after prior intimation, the computer was taken to Delhi in December, 1995. It was kept for sometime and was handed over to the complainant stating that needful had been done. However, the computer did not work properly as per defects pointed out in para 6 of the complaint. Since the computer was lying unused, District Forum was approached for the relief. Separate replies were filed by opposite parties. M/s. P. C. S. Data General (India) Limited took up preliminary objections denying privity of contract. The complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The complainant was not a consumer. The complaint was malafide and collusive between the complainant and opposite party No.2 who was not their dealer. The sale took place at Delhi. Opposite party No.2 was not authorised to make any upgrading of the computer system. Opposite party No.2 had made unauthorised changes in the system. Opposite party No.2 in its reply urged that complicated questions of law were involved and the matter was outside the jurisdiction of the District Forum. Sh. R. P. S. Rana, husband of the complainant dealt with the opposite party No.2. The computer was purchased for commercial purposes with a view to re-sale the same. The warranty stood breached on account of breaking of the seals of the computer. It was stated that the computer was purchased for re-sale as the husband of the complainant had applied for sub-dealership of opposite party No.2, who claimed to be authorised dealer of opposite party No.1, the manufacturer of the computer. There was warranty for one year. The computer was ungraded as per advice of the complainant. It was admitted that Ashwani Sondhi had gone to Jalandhar to deliver the colour monitor and for taking price of the computer from the husband of the complainant. The supply of the computer with Black and White Monitor was as agreed. In February, 1995, computer was taken to Delhi as admitted. The machine was sent to the manufacturer and it was re-delivered to the complainant after necessary corrections. The complainant filed a re-joinder denying the new facts as introduced. Both the parties produced their evidence on affidavits and documents.

(3.) Earlier the complaint was dismissed by the District Forum on October 1, 1996. An appeal was filed before this Commission against the aforesaid order which was accepted by this Commission on November 11, 1997. The case was remanded back to the FORA for decision on merits. After remand, both the parties were given opportunity to produce evidence and thereafter the impugned order was passed.