Decided on February 24,2010

Mandeep Maan Appellant
Fortune International Respondents


- (1.)THE appellant is running a Public Call Office on small basis to earn his livelihood. He purchased one Fortune 2009, STD PCO Monitor in the month of October, 2003 from M/s. Ess Ess Telesystems respondent No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 9500. It was manufactured by M/s. Fortune International respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 was a dealer of the manufacturers. The appellant was assured by the respondents before he purchased the monitor that it would give satisfactory results but after its installation, it was found that it was having manufacturing defect. It was not working properly and it was giving trouble from the day of its installation. The appellant was induced to purchase it by the respondents with malafide intention.
(2.)IT was further pleaded that the matter was brought to the notice of the respondents that the equipment was not working properly and was not giving desired results. The printer of the equipment also became faulty along with other equipment on 1.2.2004. Respondent No. 2 was informed on 3.2.2004, 4.2.2004 and 5.2.2004 but to no effect. Representations/reminders were also sent to the respondents. Ultimately. Jatinder Singh, functionary of respondent No. 2 took away the printer on 10.2.2004 in order to remove the defects and to make the apparatus functional. However, neither the defects were removed nor the printer was returned. Rather the working of the PCO of the appellant had come to a stand still. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the appellant filed a complaint against them in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short "the District Forum") for refund of Rs. 9,500 with interest. Compensation and costs were also prayed.
(3.)RESPONDENT No. l did not come present and was proceeded against ex parte .
Respondent No. 2 filed the written statement. It was pleaded that the appellant had purchased 1 Fortune 2009, STD PCO Monitor in August, 2003 from respondent No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 5,500. It was denied if the said apparatus was purchased for Rs. 9,500 or if it was purchased in October, 2003. It was denied if respondent No. 2 was the dealer or the authorised service centre of respondent No. l who was the manufacturer of this monitor. Rather respondent No. 2 was providing service in the form of repair. It was denied if the Manager of respondent No. 2 had visited the premises of the appellant or if the appellant was induced to purchase this equipment or if any assurance was given to him at the time of sale of the equipment.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.