AUROKRUTY vs SOUVENIR

THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 1st August, 1996 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pondicherry, by which the petitioner, herein, was directed to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 6,189/-.

THE complainant, respondent in this petition, got installed through the petitioner a transmatic telex system and other electronic computer equipments in his shop. The petitioner undertook by a contract dated 1.6.1993 to maintain the equipment for consideration of Rs. 5,500/-per year. The required amount of Rs. 5,500/-alongwith Rs. 600/-, which, according to the complainant, represented the amount for insurance was paid and received by the petitioner. The equipments was installed on 7th June, 1993. Unfortunately, on the night of the next day, i.e. 8th June, 1993, due to lightening and improper power connection and circuits, the equipments got burnt and the instrument went out of order. The complainant asked the petitioner to undertake repairs and also to check all the electrical items and to arrange for proper power supply. The petitioner provided the stand-by system to the complainant on 12.6.1993. The petitioner repaired the system and charged a sum of Rs. 4,000/- representing the repair and service charges for the transmatic telex system which the petitioner got rectified from parent Company. On account of the strained relations between the parties, the petitioner chose to terminate the contract and claimed Rs. 1,603/-for the period of three-and-half months during which the contract was in force. The petitioner after adjusting the amount of Rs. 1,603/- and another amount of Rs. 1,588-40 Ps. representing the cost of printer, rounded balance of Rs. 2,308.60. He also adjusted the amount of Rs. 600/- meant for insurance against transport charge. The complainant was dissatisfied with the course of action adopted by the petitioner and filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming the following reliefs: "Actual additional telephone expenses during the period the non-functioning of the telex line � Rs. 5,000/- For the failure to remit the insurance amount and depriving the complainant from a valid insurance policy � Rs. 4,000/- Refund of the contract amount paid by the complainant � Rs. 5,500/- Refund of the insurance premium amount � Rs.600/- Interest at 21.75%p.a. on the above amounts with effect from 1.6.1993. "

The petitioner contested the claim on various grounds, inter alia, that the complainant was not a consumer as he had installed the electronic equipment for commercial purpose. He never offered to take insurance policy on behalf of the complainant. The complainant on his own accord sent Rs. 5,500/- towards the annual maintenance charge and Rs. 600/-towards insurance coverage. The petitioner advised the complainant that he could not take insurance policy on behalf of the complainant as it was only the complainant who had to take insurance policy. On 8.6.1993, the equipment went out of order and the petitioner inspected the same and found that the equipment was burnt due to heavy lightening and improper power connection and circuits. He had taken the equipment to the parent Company for rectification and as a stand-by measure, the petitioner gave his new printer and the card to the complainant which he had misused. The parent Company replaced the blown parts and charged Rs. 4,000/- which was payable by the complainant. He never promised to pay back Rs. 4,000/- on account of insurance claim.

THE District Forum after considering the material placed on record and hearing the parties, returned the finding that merely paying of Rs. 600/- by the complainant to the petitioner for taking insurance policy would not clothe the petitioner with liability to pay the amount. The amount was paid on 7.6.1993 and the equipment was burnt due to lightening on 8.6.1993. There was nothing on the record to show that he undertook to take insurance coverage for the complainant and the complaint was dismissed.

THE complainant took up the matter with the State Commission by way of filing an appeal. The State Commission reversed the finding of the District Forum and held that the petitioner had also undertaken to insure the equipment on behalf of the complainant and it amounted to deficiency in service. The petitioner was burdened with the liability of Rs. 4,000/-. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case very carefully.

IT was contended on behalf of the petitioner that he had made it clear to the respondent that he was not obliged to get the insurance for the respondent but on a friendly basis, he had agreed to do it without charging any fee. The annual contract did not speak of any service of taking insurance policy. The amount was paid by Payees A/c Cheque on 7.6.1993 and after encashment of the cheque, the petitioner was supposed to take the policy an agent of the respondent. But, before this could happen, on 8.6.1993, the very next day, the respondent reported the accident on account of lightening. Even otherwise, it was a payees'' account cheque which was given on 7th June, 1993, it would have taken a day or two for clearance of the cheque and thereafter, he was to arrange for the insurance policy with the Insurance Company. The process could normally take at least two days as the Insurance Company would first inspect the premises, the instruments concerned and after being satisfied about the value, then only they would issue the policy after receiving the premium. There was nothing on the record to justify that the petitioner had offered his services on hire to the complainant.

ON the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that the complainant had hired the services of the petitioner who had undertaken to insure the equipment on behalf of the complainant which he had failed to do. There was a deficiency in service and the petitioner was bound to compensate the losses suffered by the complainant. We have considered relevant contentions of the parties. We find no material on the record which may indicate that the complainant had hired the services of the opposite party for taking the insurance policy. Even otherwise, the explanation given by the petitioner that there was no deficiency on his part in rendering the services is plausible and convincing. In our opinion, the finding of the State Commission is based on no evidence. We agree with the view taken by the District Forum that there was nothing on the record to show that the complainant hired the services of the petitioner for getting the insurance cover and the petitioner undertook to take insurance cover on behalf of the complainant. The State Commission acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. The order of the State Commission is unsustainable in law. As a result, we partly allow the appeal and hold that the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount of Rs. 4,000/- as directed by the State Commission. The order of the State Commission is modified to this extent. However, the petitioner will pay a sum of Rs. 2,189/- with costs as directed by the State Commission. The revision petition is disposed in these terms, leaving parties to bear their own costs.