K L ARORA Vs. GROOVY COMMUNICATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.