NETWORK INDIA LIMITED vs GUDIPUDI HANUMANTHA SARMA

A complaint C.D. No. 17 of 1990 was filed in the District Forum, Guntur claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000.00 against one Indian Communications Net Work Limited, which is the only opposite party. In the complaint, it was stated that the complainant purchased one Electronic Typewriter and consumable goods from the opposite party on 15.5.1989 for Rs. 31,750.00 and after under going training for some time i.e., for a period often days, the Type writer is out of order from21.5.1989 till 27.12.1989, as it is defective. Inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant through letters, the opposite party failed to rectify the defect until 27.12.1989. Since he borrowed the amount for purchasing the typewriter, as it could not be used, as it was defective, he claimed the above compensation. After the complaint was registered, notice was sent to the opposite party, which was acknowledged. When the case was posted to 20.3.1990 "One Sri Abdul Hameed Khan, on behalf of opposite party is present and filed opposite party''s version with the following allegations : It is stated that all matters should be referred to their head office at Delhi and as per the terms and conditions of their contract all matters relating to arbitration are to be settled at Ghaziabad and a copy of the quotation is enclosed. The opposite party requested to get in touch with their head office, the address of which is given".

THEN the matter was adjourned and posted for enquiry to 28.4.90 and on that day, no body appeared for the opposite party and they were set ex-parte and the complaint adduced evidence and an order was passed on merits. On a consideration of the evidence of P.W.I and Exs. A-1 to A-14, the District Forum came to the conclusion that since the complainant borrowed amount from the bank for purchase of the typewriter, he would have paid interest of about Rs. 4,000/- towards bank loan. It also granted Rs. 1000.00 compensation, as the complainant could not work the type writer for seven and half months. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal was preferred not by the opposite party, but by M/s Network India Limited. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that since the type writer was purchased for commercial purpose, the District Forum should not have entertained the complaint. But a perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 shows that he has purchased the typewriter to have it in his own institution, on which he is allowing some students to type and collecting some fee. It, therefore, cannot be said that he purchased the typewriter either for resale or to make profit by giving the typewriter on hire to others. The typewriter is in the custody of the person that purchased and he has not parted with the possession of the same and he has also not hired the type-writer to anybody also. It, therefore, cannot be said that the type writer is purchased for a commercial purpose and, that , therefore, the District Forum has no jurisdiction.

It is next contended that except the evidence of P.W.1, there is no documentary evidence to show that he has taken the loan of Rs. 31,750.00 from the bank and therefore, he would not have paid interest for a period of seven and half months. P.W.1 in his stated that he borrowed the amount and paid interest. We do not see any reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1. Even in the normal business course, he would have borrowed the amount from the bank and purchase the typewriter.

IT is next submitted that the damages of Rs. 4,000.00 and Rs. 1000.00 towards compensation, totaling to Rs.5,000.00 is on higher side. We are not inclined to accept the said contention. Evidently, the complainant has to pay interest for the amount borrowed from the bank and compensation of Rs. 1000.00 for the loss of income suffered by him for 7 months cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. It is also contended that the complaint is not maintainable against M/s Net India Work Limited, as there was some proceedings of amalgamation. But it is to be seen that the representative of the opposite party appeared before the District Forum on 20.3.1990 and gave the opposite party''s version. It, therefore, cannot be said that the opposite party was not aware of the proceedings before the District Forum. If they have not made any arrangements for subsequently prosecuting their version, they alone can be blamed. It is submitted that an application was filed for setting aside the ex-parte order, but no orders were passed by the District Forum. Since the appeal is filed against the main consumer dispute itself, we have gone through the merits of the case and we are satisfied that the District Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and notice was properly served on the opposite party and that the compensation awarded cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable.

IN the result, the Consumer Dispute Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.