H.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA-9.

F.A. No. 353 of 2008

Decided on 5.5.2009.



Horizon Computers Near Gyuto Monastery,

Sidhbari, Tehsil Dharamshala,

Distict Kangra (H.P) through its Proprietor

Sh. Pankaj Sharma

Son of Sh. Subhash Chand Sharma,

Resident of YOL, Tehsil Dharamshala,

District Kangra (H.P). .....Appellant.

Versus



Balwant Dogra son of Sh. Kehar Singh,

Resident of Village Upper Dari,

P.O. Dari, Tehsil Dharamshala,

Distict Kangra (H.P).

….Respondent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President.

Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Sharna, Member.

Hon’ble Mr. Chander Shekher Sharma, Member.



Whether approved for reporting ?



For the Appellant. Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate.



For the Respondent. Mr. Sanjay Gandhi, Advocate.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER



Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President.



1. Mr. Surinder Saklani, learned counsel for the appellant challenged the order of District Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala dated 1.10.2008 in Consumer Complaint No. 377/2006. While allowing the complaint, District Forum below ordered as under :-



“6. In view of our findings on points No. 1 and 2 above, the complaint is partly allowed and we order the oppoiste party to replace the defctive computer with new one of the same make and model, within 30 days after the receipt of copy of this order, failing which the opposite party will return the consideration amount to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint, till its realisation. The oppoiste party is also directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- coupled with litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 2000/-.”



2. Per Mr. Saklani, Annexure C-2 filed with the complaint is not a genuine receipt and also its original was not produced. Alternatively he submitted that instead of ordering replacement of computer in question failing which to return with consideration, his client at best could be directed to repair the computer. Lastly it was submitted by Mr. Saklani, that compensation and cost should not have been allowed in any situation, thus he prayed for allowing this appeal by setting aside the impugned order or in the alternative to reduce the compensation and cost to a nominal sum by modifying the impugned order.



3. All these pleas were seriously contested by Mr. Gandhi, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent. Per him in the circumstances of this case, impugned order suffers from no infirmity which may justify either it being set aside or modified. Rather according to him compensation needs to be enhanced, besides levying punitive cost.



4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, as well as having examined the record of the complaint file, we are of the view that subject to partial modification of compensation and cost, rest of the order passed by District Forum below needs to be upheld as no exception can be taken to it.



5. Challenge to Annexure C-2 on account of its being either not genuine or its original having not been produced is being noted simply to be rejected. Reason being that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to proceedings before the Foras under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Annexure C-2 is also challenged on the basis that it is a receipt. Its perusal shows that no doubt it is nomenclatured as a receipt, but its contents clearly suggest that it pertains to the computer in question relating to bill No. 320, dated 4.5.2006, issued by the appellant. Copy of this bill is Annexure C-1 and was admitted at the time of hearing by learned counsel for the appellant. It appears that on its printed receipt for money, computer having been received for repair or replacement case, is signed by the authorised signatory of the appellant. Thus non-production of its original does not improve the case of the appellant.



6. Faced with this situation, it was submitted by Mr. Saklani that authorised signatories of Annexure C-1 the bill, and the receipt Annexure C-2 are different to the naked eye. As such according to him no benefit can be derived from the receipt of Annexure C-2. Suffice it to say in this behalf is that it is not the case of the appellant, nor it was argued that the authorised signatory was one and the same person both when Annexure C-1 the bill, and the receipt of computer for repairs or replacement case, Annexure C-2 was issued. This is an additional ground to reject the submission urged by Mr. Saklani based on Annexure C-2.



7. So far plea of the appellant that instead of having ordered for replacement of the computer in question and on failure to pay the consideration with interest is concerned, its repairs should have ordered, is likewise without merit. Computer having developed defects within very short span of its purchase is established on the basis of the evidence on record. In such a situation this plea urged on behalf of the appellant is without merit, hence rejected. As such, we are of the view that direction either to replace the computer with a new one or to pay the consideration is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld. Ordered accordingly.



8. On an overall examination of the whole case it is felt that compensation and cost allowed in the total sum of Rs. 7000/-, (5000+2000) respectively need to be reduced to a consolidated sum of Rs. 5000/-. Ordered accordingly.



9. No other point was urged.



10. In view of the aforesaid discussion while partly allowing this appeal it is ordered that compensation and cost will now be payable in







the sum of Rs. 5000/- instead of Rs. 7000/- (Rs. 5000+2000) respectively, as ordered by District Forum below. Rest of the order passed in Consumer Complaint No. 377/2006 by District Forum below is upheld leaving the parties to bear their own cost.



11. Since appeal was filed and execution of the impugned order was stayed, as such period of one month will now start from today i.e. 5.5.2009 to comply with the above extracted directions as contained in the order of District Forum below.



12. All interim orders passed from time to time shall stand vacated forthwith.



13. Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the copy of this order free of cost as per Rules.



(Justice Arun Kumar Goel) Retd.

President





(Saroj Sharma) Member





(Chander Shekher Sharma)

Member

Suneera

5.5.2009.