STEEL CITY SECURITIES LIMITED Vs. INNOVATIVE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
STEEL CITY SECURITIES LIMITED
INNOVATIVE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Click here to view full judgement.
P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, J. -
(1.) THE complainant, a
registered Company engaged in share broking and consultancy services
purchased on 28.3.1997 a Think Pad Computer of IBM brand under bill dated
29.3.1997 for Rs. 3,90,000/ - from the first opposite party manufactured by opposite parties 2 and 3. However from April, 1997 onwards it was not
serving properly and the very purpose of purchasing the Thinkpad has been
defeated because the external floppy disk drive FDD was not functioning.
Though the first opposite party collected the instrument part for
repairing and servicing as is evident from call report dated 18.12.1997
was lying with it upto 8.9.1998. However on 8.9.1998 the first opposite
party came back with a new Thinkpad part to instal it. Even the
substitute part could not be made to work. In the customer call report
dated 8.9.1998 the same was mentioned. Even the registered notice sent by
the complainant did not evoke any response. As such, the complainant
suffered business loss of Rs. 10,40,400/ - and hence filed the complaint
for the said amount together with costs of Rs. 10,000/ -.
The first opposite party did not file its written version.
(2.) IN the written version filed by the opposite parties 2 and 3 it is stated that the second opposite party appoints distributors who
purchase the stock and distribute/sell the P.Cs. through their own
net -work of dealers/retailers who in turn resell the goods to customers.
There is no privity of contract between the second opposite party and the
complainant. But the sale is an exclusive transaction between the
complainant and the first opposite party and the second opposite party
does not come in the way. Further, the complainant is not a consumer,
inasmuch as the purchase of Thinkpad was for commercial purpose.
(3.) THE complainant filed Exs. A -1 to A -12 besides the affidavit of its Executive Director. The opposite parties 2 and 3 also filed Exs. B -1
to B -3 besides the affidavit of their Sales Manager.
The point for consideration, therefore, is whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3, if so, to what
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.