K.L.ARORA vs GROOVY COMMUNICATIONS

THIS petition arises out of an order passed by the State Commission dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner complainant under Section 27 of the C.P. Act.

BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a Laser Jet Printer from the opposite parties which did not work well. On filing a complaint by the complainant alleging deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite parties, the District Forum proceeding ex-parte against the opposite parties as they remained un-represented in spite of notice after hearing the complainant directed the opposite parties to repair the printer to the satisfaction of the complainant and if it is not possible then to replace the laser printer with a new one, with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Alternatively, if it is not possible to replace the printer then to refund the cost of the petitioner i.e. Rs. 1,65,000/- alongwith interest @ 12%; the order was to be complied within 60 days. No appeal was filed by either parties, hence this order became final. On an application filed under Section 27 by the complainant, the District Forum dismissed this application as the District Forum held that the printer was repaired as directed and no expert report has been filed by the complainant in support of the fact that the printer has been filed by the complainant in support of the fact that the printer had any mechanical defect. On an appeal filed by the complainant before the State Commission, it was also dismissed on the same ground, hence this revision petition.

It was argued by the petitioner that both the lower Forums have not cared to see the order of the District Forum passed on 24.11.00 wherein it had said that opposite parties were directed to repair the printer to the satisfaction of the complainant. The factum of repair was not denied but in spite of repair the printer is not working. The very fact that a quotation for Rs. 6,418/- was given by the respondent, meant that printer required further repairs. Both the lower Forums have erred in their appreciation of the case, hence their orders need to be set aside.

WE have seen the material on record and heard the arguments. It is not denied that pursuant to the order of the District Forum passed on 24.11.00, printer was repaired. The contention of the opposite parties before the District Forum in execution was that printer has been repaired but what the complainant wants is replacement of consumables which is not covered by the terms of warranty. Both the lower Forums have accepted this fact and rejected the application under Section 27 and appeal thereafter filed by the complainant. The quotations cited before us for Rs. 6,418/- also relate to drum kit, which is a consumable. Both the lower Forums rejected the case of the complainant on the grounds that neither any expert report nor any affidavit has been filed by the complainant to support of his case that there is anything wrong with the ''printer'' after repairs. In the absence of any evidence, in our view, both the lower Forums were justified in rejecting the application filed under Section 27 and appeal thereafter as the opposite parties had fully complied with the order passed in the original complaint. WE see no merit in this petition. Hence dismissed. No orders on costs. Revision Petition dismissed.