V.S.D.CORPORATION vs RADHA KRISHNA CHATTOPADHYAY

ON request the matter is taken up for final hearing. The appellant has filed a petition praying for stay of Warrant of Arrest issued by the Forum directing the O.C. Here Street, P.S. to execute to Warrant of Arrest against the appellant and to submit execution report by 14.6.2001. This led the appellant to file a put up petition praying for stay operation of the impugned order dated 4.6.2001. Since the matter is very urgent we have taken up the matter for final hearing, with the consent of the parties.

IT appears that the complainant purchased a Computer from the opposite party for valuable consideration. But ever since the purchase it was giving trouble to him. The complainant made repeated representation to the opposite party for rectifying the defects but without any results. The complainant approached the Forum praying for a direction upon the opposite party for refund of consideration money and for compensation. It appears that the opposite party entered appearance before the Forum by filing written statement. It also appears from the impugned order that on several occasions the opposite party has come to represent and on their prayer an expert was appointed to ascertain whether the Computer in question was defective or not and whether some components are required to be changed to set the Computer right. It appears from the impugned judgment that the expert could not complete the work of any inspection because of recalcitrant attitude on the part of the opposite party. During inspection the learned Counsel for the opposite party signed the minutes though one Mr. Doshi said to be a representative of opposite party did not put his signature. The expert found that the machine was not functioning at all. The Forum observed that the work of the expert ran into rough weather because of non-cooperation of the parties viz. supplier Company. The expert found further that the component parts were not of standard make. The expert could not proceed to detect the defects of the hardware and software of the Computer because of the attitude of the opposite party. In the face of this situation the Forum proceeded to determine the matter and ultimately by the impugned order directed the present appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 59,000/- within 2 months from the date of service of the copy of the order. The Forum noticed that the complainant had to pay Rs. 500/- each to the two experts and accordingly the Forum passed an award for a sum of Rs. 1,000/- in favour of the complainant. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the experts could not detect the defects in the Computer. There is no reasonable explanation as to why the opposite party adopted such an attitude though experts had been appointed on their seeking. The complainant who appears in person submits that the opposite party was not inclined to extend co-operation to the experts since the beginning nor did they change the components to set the Computer right. He submits further that the sole purpose is to harass him who is busy in research work. Anyway, we find that because of the attitude and the non-cooperation of the appellant the Computer could not be inspected and it is lying idle. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that an opportunity should be given to them to repair the Computer by way of supply of components if required. The complainant submits that he is not interested in getting the Computer changed. He submits further that he has no faith in the sincerity of the opposite parties. It appears that the opposite parties first challenged the impugned order dated 26.6.2000 before the Forum and the Forum dismissed it on 28.9.2000 with the observation that the opposite party may move up in appeal if so advised and if not barred by law. Thereafter the appellant has filed this appeal. According to the complainant the sole purpose of the opposite party is to harass him and he is running from one Court to another for redress. Having considered the submission of the parties we hold that there is hardly any merit in the appeal and as such we have no hesitation to reject it. The appeal is dismissed on contest. The order of the Forum is affirmed. Appeal dismissed.