Oral Order ( As per Sri Syed Abduallah, Honble Member)
These appellants are the unsuccessful opposite parties 1 and 2 in C.C. 29/2007 before the District Forum, Ananthapur, in which, they were directed to replace with new Intel Computer in the place of demonstration model and also new Intel C.D. Writer in the place of Orchid Innovations C.D. Writer and to pay cost of Laptop Power Cord for Rs.50/-, by refunding the excess collection of Rs.505/- and Rs.501/- besides refunding of Rs.250/- collected towards installation charges etc. in total, 2,776/- with compensation of Rs.2000/- and costs.
The facts of the case are that the complainant had approached first opposite party on 02.02.2006 to purchase one Intel computer and CD writer. The first opposite party is the dealer and the second opposite party is the supplier of Intel computer. The first opposite party informed that installation charges for software would not be collected. Both opposite parties 1 and 2 falsely represented that Window XP would operate properly with 64 MB RAM. Believing their version, the complainant purchased Intel computer from first opposite party on 02.02.2006 for Rs.7,500/- vide cash bill no. 4142 with one year warranty. The C. D. Writer was also purchased on the same day from OP. 1 for Rs.2,500/- vide cash bill no. 4143 with one year warranty. Both the goods were delivered on 24.02.2006. The actual price of the Intel computer was Rs. 6,995/- as per the advertisement of the News paper â The Hinduâ. So also, the cost of the C D. writer was also Rs.1,999/-, but, in stead of it, they collected Rs.7,500/- for Intel computer and Rs.2,500/- for C. D. writer by collecting excess amount of Rs.505/- and Rs.501/- respectively. Besides it, Rs.250/- was collected towards installation charges. The opposite parties failed to install the software programme as assured by them and sold demonstration model computer instead of new Intel computer. Further the opposite party supplied â Orchid Innovations â Brand C. D. writer instead of Intel Brand C.D. writer. So also, Owners manual or adapter were not given. Thus, the first opposite party had committed deficiency in service. On 02.02.2006, the complainant handed over his Laptop to first opposite party for conducting repairs. But the first opposite party returned the same with inferior quality of power cord on 11.03.2006 without effecting repairs. The first opposite party used Laptop computer to force sale of Intel computer and avoided to return Laptop computer to the complainant. The act or omission on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.
The first opposite party while admitting the purchase of the Intel computer and C. D. writer by the complainant on 02.02.2006 has denied the other allegations. The first opposite party had collected 4% VAT Tax, transport and other miscellaneous charges which were explained to the complainant and on satisfaction the complainant purchased the same. No extra charges were collected as alleged. The complainant had not purchased C. D. writer as per the news item and he purchased another company brand, viz. â Orchid Innovationsâ. The warranty period for the items was from 02.02.2006 and not from 24.02.2006. the dates are manipulated. There is no deficiency in service to make him liable for the claim.
During the enquiry, the complainant filed evidence affidavit along with Ex. A1 to A-28 and Ex.B-1 and B-2 were filed by Opposite parties.
After considering the disputed and undisputed facts based on the documentary evidence, the District Forum had come to the conclusion that the evidence clearly disclose that the first opposite party did not supply Intel Computer and C. D. Writer as per the advertisement, in stead, supplied another Companys Brand, viz. â Orchid Innovationsâ which amounts to negligence and deficiency in service and thereby granted relief.
The strong hold contentions raised by the appellants in the appeal grounds are that the District Forum failed to appreciate the evidence on record in right perspective and without verification whether the goods purchased by the consumer were sold by the appellant from the shop where the consumer purchased goods. It is also the stand of the appellant/opposite party that the complainant had purchased the goods with full satisfaction and so it cannot be said that any mis-representation was made.
Point for consideration is, whether the impugned order suffers from any factual or legal infirmity for its interference ?
The second opposite party was set exparte as he failed to attend before the District Forum for hearing on 24.04.2007. Postal acknowledgments of both Opposite parties 1 and 2 were received by the District Forum. So satisfying with the service of notice the second opposite party was set exparte. From the date of first hearing, i.e., 24.04.2007 the case continued up to 02.11.2007, on which date, the impugned order was passed. All the while, the second opposite party did not take any steps to get the exparte orders set aside or participate in the enquiry to put forth his defence.
The second opposite party has not put forth any fresh cause as to why he could not contest the matter. Apart from it, there is no satisfactory ground in the appeal grounds to set aside the exparte order passed. Ex. A-4 brochure was supplied by the second opposite party relating to computer parts manufactured by its company. This brochure is not at all disputed by the second opposite party. A cursory look of brochure makes it clear about the advertisement made with regard to the goods manufactured and sold to the public. The first opposite party has not disputed Ex. A-1 and A-2 bills which were issued for Rs.7,500/- and Rs.2,500/-, in which, warranty period of one year is mentioned.
It is the case of the complainant that the opposite parties have collected the cost of the Intel computer at Rs.7,500/- while it was advertised for Rs.6,999/- and similarly the cost of the C. D. Writer as per the advertisement is Rs.1,999/- but collected Rs.2500/- besides installation charges of Rs.250/- which was collected contrary to the advertisement given in the brand. It is also the case of the complainant that the opposite party had not installed the software programme as promised and sold demonstration model computer in stead of new Intel computer. Further, he had supplied âOrchid Innovations â brand C.D. writer instead of Intel Brand C. D. writer. It is also not supplied the Adapter or Owners manual for following the instructions. It is also the case of the complainant that first opposite party had given his Laptop for repairs on 11.03.2006 but it was returned without effecting repairs along with inferior quality of Power Cord. According to the complainant, he was compelled to purchase computer sold by the first opposite party which act or omission amounts to not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice. As per Sec. 2 Q of the C. P. Act, â a Trader â means, a person who sells or distributes any goods for sale and includes the manufacturer thereof, and where such goods are sold or distributed in package form is turned to be treated as â trader â . So as per the definition both the opposite parties 1 and 2 satisfies the definition of â traderâ who sold the goods to the complainant by collecting the cost of it. The grievance of the complainant is that the first opposite party, who is the dealer, had sold him the goods other than that was promised which fact is not at all denied by the first opposite party. spurious goods and service are defined U/s. 2 (1)(O)(O) of the C. P. Act, which defines that in case goods and services which are claimed to be genuine but they are actually not so, would come under this category. Similarly, U/s.2(1) (r ) of the C. P. Act, âunfair trade practice defined as unfair trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice by making false representation as its quality, quantity, grade, performance etc.
We have gone through the documentary evidence on record and on re-appraisal of the same, we are satisfied that the first opposite party had misrepresented for sale of the goods. The second opposite party being the supplier of the goods referred to above, he jointly and severally liable along with the first opposite party for his acts or omissions. The District Forum, after analyzing documentary evidence on record, has rightly come to the conclusion that there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in effecting sales of the goods covered by Ex. A-1 and A-2. The complainant had taken pains to address to the second opposite party bringing to his notice about his branded goods that were sold to him by collecting excess amount and installation charges. There is no perversity in the order passed by the District Forum to differ with it. Both the appeals are devoid of merits.
In the result, the appeals are dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum as justified. In the circumstances of the case, each party to bear their own costs.