APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS -1- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Rathi, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON: 11 January 2018 th ORDER PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 17.11.2016, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in First Appeal No. A/859/2008, M.G. Electronics vs. Sham Nandlal Sharma (deceased), through LRs & Anr. and First Appeal No. A/906/2008, Capgun Exim vs. Sham Nandlal Sharma (deceased), through LRs, vide which, while dismissing both the appeals, the order dated 12.09.2008, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yavatmal in Consumer Complaint No. 138/2000, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the deceased complainant Sham Nandlal Sharma is stated to have purchased a Note Book Computer from the petitioner/OP-1, M.G. Electronics for a total price of Rs. 87,040/- in the month of February, 1998 after obtaining loan from the Janta Commercial Cooperative Bank, Yavatmal. The said computer stopped working just after a short period, in the month of April, 1998. The complainant informed the petitioner/OP-1 about the fault in the computer and handed over the same to them. The OP-1 assured that the defects would be removed from the computer, but the needful was not done. The OP-1 then returned the computer to the complainant and asked him to take it to the OP-2 for repairs. The complainant handed over the computer to the OP-2, but the same was never returned to him, thereafter. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question against the OP-1 as well as the OP-2, seeking payment of a total sum of Rs. 2,05,040/-, including the cost of computer, the interest paid to the Bank and for mental agony/harassment etc.

3. The complaint was resisted by the OPs by filing a written statement before the District Forum. It is the case of petitioner/OP-1 that no sale/purchase of the said computer had taken place between the petitioner/OP-1 and the complainant. The complainant wanted to avail himself of loan facility from the Bank and for that purpose, the petitioner/OP-1 had issued a quotation and bill to him. The petitioner/OP-1 has further stated that the complainant had paid the amount for the computer to the OP-2 directly. The complainant had not given the computer to the OP-1 for repairs as well. On the other hand, the OP-2 Capgun Exim have taken the stand that they were doing the business of selling of electronic articles in Nagpur. They used to bring the electronic articles from foreign countries and sell them to the customers without any warranty or guarantee. The articles once sold could not be replaced. The OP-2 had sold the said computer and adaptor to OP-1 and thereafter, the OP-1 had sold the said computer to the complainant.

4. The District Forum, after taking into account the averments of the parties, passed their order on 12.09.2008, in the operative part of which, it was stated as follows:-

1. The complaint of the applicant is partly allowed.

2. The non-applicant no. 1 and 2 should pay jointly and severally to the applicant a sum of Rs. 87,040/- within 30 days from the date of this judgment and on this amount should pay interest @ 9% p.a. from 20.04.1998 till the full amount is paid. Similarly they should pay the cost of complaint Rs. 2000/-.

3. The demand made by non-applicant no. 1 by his application dated 01.07.2008 (exhibit-18) is being denied.

4. The applicant can withdraw the amount of Rs. 25,000/- from this Forum deposited by non-applicant no. 1 as per the order of State Commission Mumbai in appeal no. 2114/2000 and the interest thereon within 45 days from the date of this judgment. This amount can be included by the non-applicant in the amount of compensation and interest as per clause no. 2 of the order as received from non-applicant no. 1.

5. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, both the OPs challenged the same by way of appeals before the State Commission. However, both the appeals having been dismissed vide impugned order, the OP-1, M.G. Electronics is before this Commission by way of the present Revision Petition.

6. During admission hearing before this Commission, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no relationship of service provider and consumer between the petitioner and the complainant, because the actual sale of the device had not been done by the OP-1. The bill no. 576 dated 24.02.1998 issued by the petitioner did not contain any guarantee/warranty clause. The said bill as well as the quotation had been issued only to enable the complainant to obtain loan facility from the concerned Bank. Moreover, the description of the computer contained in the quotation dated 01.01.1998 did not match with the actual computer that was sold to the complainant.

7. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

8. The consumer complaint in question had earlier been decided ex-parte against both the opposite parties by the District Forum vide order dated 30.10.2000. However, in appeal before the State Commission, the said order was set aside and the case was remanded to the District Forum vide order dated 19.06.2008 for a decision afresh. In the order passed by the District Forum on 12.09.2008, both the opposite parties have been jointly and severally held liable to pay the price of the computer i.e. Rs. 87,040/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from 20.04.1998 till realisation. A perusal of the copies of the documents placed on record in this revision petition shows that the OP-2 Capgun Exim sent letter dated 20.04.1998 to the Janta Commercial Bank, Akola saying that the complainant Sham Nandlal Sharma had purchased a Note Book Computer through M/s. M.G. Electronics i.e. OP-1. The said computer had some hardware and functional problems during operations and the machine was with them for further repairs. It is evident from this letter that the said computer was duly purchased by the complainant and the same had been lying with the OP-2 for repairs. Another letter dated 28.04.1998, sent by the OP-2, addressed to the OP-1 has been placed on record, in which it has been stated that they had received a computer for some repairs from Mr. Sham Nandlal Sharma. It is also stated that the said computer had been sold to OP-2 by OP-1. It was also stated that as soon as the repair was completed, the machine was handed over to the complainant. On record, is the copy of the quotation dated 01.01.1998, in which it has been stated that the warranty period for the computer was one year. A copy of bill no. 576 dated 24.02.1998 in favour of the complainant has also been placed on record, as per which, the computer was sold by the petitioner/OP-1 to the complainant for a sum of Rs. 87,040/-. It is made out from this entire documentary evidence that the complainant did purchase the computer in question from the OPs and the said computer started giving problems, only after a short period of purchase. Whether the said computer was purchased directly from the OP-2 or the purchase was affected through OP-1, it was the duty of the OPs to have ensured that the defects in the computer were got removed. The entire material placed on record including the written arguments filed by the OPs does not indicate anywhere whether the OPs took any steps to carry out the repairs in the said computer and supply the same in a defect-free condition to the complainant. We have, therefore, no reason to disagree with the findings given by the District Forum, duly affirmed by the State Commission. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the consumer fora below. Moreover, it is a settled legal proposition that the powers in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction should be used only, if there is a material defect or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the consumer fora below. Under these circumstances, this revision petition is ordered to be dismissed in limine and the orders passed by the consumer fora below are upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. ...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER