GENESIS TELECOMMUNICATION LTD. vs K.K. ENTERPRISE

THE appeal is against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Calcutta in C.D.F. Case No.298/92 dated 30/11/1992. THE oppoiste party is the appellant.

BRIEF fact of the case is that the appellant sold an EPABX Machine, Model G -208 to the respondent on 28/12/1989 and installed the same at his premises. But soon a filer it was alleged by the complainant-respondent that the machine developed operational trouble. The Complainant-respondent accordingly lodged an information with O.P./appellant asking it to repair the same. But for non-receipt of any response from the O.P./ Appellant the complainant-appellant filed a case in the Calcutta District Forum for refund/replacement of the machine. The Ld. C.D.F. passed an order for repairing/ replacement of the EPABX system. The appellant replaced the same with a new machine and extended the warranty period till 2/11/1993. It has been alleged by the respondent that the machine again developed trouble after it was used for seven months. The Service Centre/Branch of the appellant now being closed in Calcutta, the respondent contacted the appellant in New Delhi for the repair of the same. The appellant now demanded that the respondent should pay for the charges of repair and the cost of travelling to and fro of the Service Engineers of the appellant company from Delhi to Calcutta. The respondent declined to pay for that as he points out the stipulations in Clauses 2 & 3 of the warranty which provides for the free service of the machine and carrying out of preventive maintenance once in every two months. Therefore, having been refused by the appellant, the respondent against filed a case against the appellant in C.D.F. The Ld. C.D.F. passed an order in C.D.F. Case No. 298/92 directing the appellant to refund a sum of Rs. 19,775.00 being the cost of the machine alongwith 18% interest within one month from the date of the demand.

The appellant alleged that the case is not maintainable on ground of jurisdiciton as the goods were sold in Delhi and it invokes Sec. 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986. Further, the appellant was not given proper opportunity to present its case.

HEARD both the sides, perused the petition and the documents on record. In our considered opinion the grounds of appeal do not justify the case of the appcllant. The question of jurisdiction goes as and when the appellant installed the machine at the premises of the respondent in Calcutta and covered the same with the warranty. Further, we are fortified with several judgments of the different State Commissions and the National Commission that if the machine is purchased for personal use and procured by a small enterpreneur the buyer will be covered under the definiton of ''Consumer''. The allegation of the appellant that he was not given opportunity to present his case is also not true as it is found from the record that the matter was well within its knowledge and it had also entered into correspondence with the respondent on this subject.

FOR all the aforesaid reasons the appeal is dismissed. Order of CDF in Case No. 298/92 dt. 30.11.92 is affirmed. There will be no order as to cost. Appeal dismissed.