LAWS(NCD)-2022-10-58

ROYAL ELECTRO COMPUTERS PVT. LTD. Vs. PRAMOD KAPADAN

Decided On October 31, 2022
Royal Electro Computers Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
V/S
Pramod Kapadan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai (in short, 'State Commission') in First Appeal No. 12/990 dtd. 25/7/2013 arising out of order dtd. 31/8/2012 in complaint no. 34 of 2008 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pune (in short, 'District Forum').

(2.) The petitioner's case is that on 9/7/2007 he had supplied a Compaq Presario computer, an HP LCD monitor and UPS at a cost of Rs.29,580.00 to the respondent. Subsequently, the monitor was changed at the respondent's request to a Compaq TFT LCD monitor for which the difference in price of Rs.1500.00 was paid. The respondent had complained that the computer was defective and that based on the report/expert opinion of one Rohit Jhunjhunwala it was found that the computer had been supplied with pirated software and without various drivers in the form of CDs. Based on this report, the District Forum concluded that there was deficiency in service and ordered the petitioner to refund Rs.29,850.00 with interest at 9% from 8/2/2008 with cost of Rs.1000.00 within 6 weeks. The petitioner's appeal before the State Commission was dismissed on the ground that the computer supplied was defective as per the technical expert with costs of Rs.10,000.00 . The petitioner is before us challenging the report of the expert and contending that it was taken on record without opportunity to him to oppose it and therefore the findings of the lower fora are erroneous. He also contends that the technical report filed was not by any government laboratory and that the expert was not an 'expert' as required under the Act. He has therefore prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent remained unrepresented despite notice including by dasti and final opportunity being provided to be present and was therefore placed ex parte. The records have been perused carefully.