MODI OLIVETTI LTD Vs. INTERSOFT PROFESSIONALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Modi Olivetti Ltd., Nehru Place, New Delhi, has been ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 21,950/- on account of the expenses incurred by the respondent for hiring a qualified Engineer for the purpose of necessary repairs which were effected and a further sum of Rs. 71,700/- which is the estimated expenditure required to be incurred on the machines, in question. A general compensation of Rs. 5,000/- was also awarded and costs in the sum of Rs. 3,000 / were also allowed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Union Territory, Chandigarh, on 21.4.94. Aggrieved against it the present appeal has been attempted.

(2.) Briefly it has been alleged that M/s. Instersoft Professionals, Chandigarh, imparts education and training on computer and it had been running its centre as a kind of franchisee of M/s. Apple Industries Limited, Bombay. It was M/s. Appeal Industries, Bombay who placed an order on the respondent on 19.3.90 for the supply of computer machines. M/s. Modi Olivetti Limited, supplied ten machines to the complainant at Chandigarh on 5.6.90. However, only seven of these could be installed and the remaining three could not be installed originally but after replacement of their important parts. Those three were also installed on 11.4.91. The complainant started informing the appellant from 29.6.90 that the machines had manufacturing defects and were not according to the specifications. It was on 21.1.91 that Regional Manager of the appellant agreed to visit the computer centre but he did not fulfil the assurance. It was on 12.4.91 that same representatives of the respondent visited the complainant's computer centre and inspected the machines and reached the conclusion that the machines were irreparable and no further improvement could be made. The appellant had allegedly agreed to replace the ten computers but the complainant was expected to pay a sum of Rs. 9,000/- per machine extra. However the appellant failed to fulfil this assurance. The complainant sent a Bank draft of Rs. 9,000/- on 9.7.91 but it was returned by the respondent on 19.8.91 without assigning any reasons. The complainant had mainly prayed that the respondent be asked to replace the computers with M. 290SE and it should also be required to pay a sum of Rs. 21,650/- spent for the purpose of repair and maintenance upto December, 1991. After the proposed replacement the new machines should also be subject to examination for a period of two months for their flawless working at the complainant's centre under old terms and conditions.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the respondent is a franchise of M/s. Apple Industries Limited and is running a computer centre at Chandigarh and there was no relationship between M/s. Apple Industries Ltd., Bombay and the complainant who has been running different business and has separate legal entity in the form of computer centre. The agreement for purchase of these machines dated 19.3.90 is Annexure I. A perusal thereof shows that 26 machines were supplied by the appellant manufacturer at various places including the premises of the respondent at the instance of M/s. Apple Industries Ltd. M/s. Intersoft Professionals, Chandigarh is a kind of frenchisee of M/s. Apple Industries, Bombay, notwithstanding the fact that the price was remitted by complainant. Thus M/s. Intersoft Professionals now respondent was the purchaser in respect of these machines.