SURESH KUMAR VISHWAKARMA vs MANAS KOUL

THIS revision petition arises out of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra whereby the State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum. The facts in brief are as under :

THE complainant, an Advocate, purchased a computer from the respondent for consideration of Rs. 47,000/- on 17th May, 1999. It is alleged in the complaint that the opposite party had not installed the component and parts as shown in the quotation. It is also alleged in the complaint that the opposite party had charged excess amounts over and above the amount of Rs. 47,000/- which has already been charged, for fitting multimedia kit creative company, but had not fitted those components. That is why, the complainant was not able to use the computer in the absence the components as mentioned above. Not satisfied with the functioning of the computer the complainant approached the District Forum with the following reliefs : (i) The complainant be provided with software, floppy, short supplied equipments and other necessary items from respondent. (ii) The complainant be provided with a company made computer fitted with all equipments, software with floppy by respondent. (iii) The complainant be also provided Rs. 10,000/- for improper service and Rs. 10,000/- for mental harassment and tension, Rs. 500/- for expenditure in notice and Rs. 2,000/- for the cost of case and Rs. 8,000/- of excess payment from respondent and added with interest @ 18% upto the payment.

In response to the notice, the opposite party filed its written version wherein he had admitted that he had received Rs. 47,000/- from the respondent for the cost of the computer; that the computer was fitted with all equipments including windows and page-maker; that all papers were given at the time of delivery of computer; it is denied that 1.2 GB hard disk was installed in place of 2.1 GB hard-disk; that he had not used any substandard assembled multimedia kit; that he had to receive Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant and lastly denied having received Rs. 8,000/- as excess amount.

UPON hearing both sides the District Forum framed the following point of law for consideration : "Whether respondent has made a mistake or not given satisfactory service and charged Rs. 8,000/- in excess ?" The District Forum adverted to the quotation, the affidavit of the complainant and the cross-examination of the complainant wherein he had admitted that after installation of the computer the opposite party had visited him to see working of the computer about 3-4 times and that the multimedia was also installed in his computer. The District Forum did not rely upon the affidavit of one Mr. Pramod Rathore, the witness of the complainant, on the ground that he had no knowledge of the assembling computer and technical knowledge of hardware. The District Forum had also adverted to the affidavit of the opposite party wherein he had stated that complainant was fully satisfied with the computer set, that he had not obtained any excess amount from the complainant, and that he had given the goods according to the delivery challan. For the reasons stated above the District Forum held that the complainant being an Advocate could not have made the excess payment without taking the equipment. In view of this discussion, the District Forum dismissed complaint. While doing so the District Forum had directed the respondent to attend to the defects, if any, found in the computer.

NOT feeling satisfied with the order of the District Forum the complainant went in appeal to the State Commission. The State Commission has dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the District Forum. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission the complainant has come in revision before us. The matter was fixed for hearing on 12th August, 2002, when the complainant had sent a fax message expressing his inability to attend the matter personally and requested us to peruse the appeal with special attention to para 4 of grounds of appeal on page Nos. 4 and 5 and admit it for hearing, notices be issued to the respondents and the appellant be informed accordingly. We have gone through the cogent, well-reasoned and detailed order passed by the District Forum which was upheld by the State Commission in appeal. There is a concurrent finding of facts by both the Fora below which does not call for interference at our end by exercising our revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Revision Petition is dismissed.