Brief facts of the case are that Petitioner Company purchased two UPS machines (called Aurora Mod. Sine UPS PG) from Metro Cash & Carry for a consideration of Rs.30,598/-. Both the UPSs were installed by the authorized expert of Aurora. For some days, UPS machines worked properly but then these started showing problem. On this, the petitioner thricely contacted the Metro Cash & Carry, authorized dealer of Aurora for redressal of their grievance but each time they did not cooperate and ultimately flatly refused to accede to petitioner Company?s demand. Thereafter the petitioner served legal notice to the respondents but still they paid no heed, hence, this petition for grant of suit amount of Rs.12,00, 000/- on account of suffering mental agony, loss of property and repute.
2. Petition was contested by the respondents on law and facts.
3. The petitioner appeared as PW-1 and also placed on record his sworn affidavit Ex-P-1, copies of legal notice Ex-P-2, courier receipts Ex-P-3 & 3/1, sale invoice Ex-P-4 and copy of certificate Mark `P/A'. In rebuttal, respondent's representative, Ehsan Javed appeared as DW-1 and also produced his sworn affidavit Ex-D-1, authority letter Ex-D-2 and copy of service slip Mark `D/A'.
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. Perusal of parties' evidence and other record on case file would show that petitioner's claim is liable to be accepted because; firstly, relationship of "consumer" and "manufacturer" as well as sale / purchase of UPS machines is not denied by the respondents; secondly, respondent No.1, even if not being directly responsible for the alleged manufacturing fault, are still liable for replacement of defective UPSs or they should compensate the petitioner on this account, thirdly, petitioner obviously had to suffer for non-functioning of faulty UPS machines; fourthly, respondents' contention that the petitioner company itself is responsible for the alleged fault or defect leading to nonfunctioning of UPSs, but such contention is not supported by evidence; and lastly, respondent No.1 & 2 both are responsible directly or indirectly to compensate petitioner's loss and inconvenience as per terms and conditions given on the warranty card. Thus, not only that respondent No.2 are liable to compensate petitioner's loss but also that respondent No.1 should arrangement replacement of suit UPSs or refund their sale price.
6. For the foregoing discussion, petitioner's claim is accepted in the manner that respondents shall replace both the UPSs with new ones of the same kind and make or refund their sale price to the petitioner company. Respondents shall also pay compensation / damages or Rs.50,000/- for causing disturbance in the working of petitioner - company alongwith counsel fee of Rs.20,000/-.
As regards, petitioner's remaining claim; the same is hereby dismissed for want of evidence. After completion, file be consigned to record room.