HEERU MEHRA Vs. P.C., SYSTEMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 22.12.2011 passed by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 42 of 2011 - P.C. System Vs. Smt. Heeru Mehra & Ors. by which, while allowing appeal, partly, order of District Forum allowing complaint was modified. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner after obtaining loan from Punjab National Bank for purchase of computers, purchased 4 computers from OP -1/Respondent no. 1. OP No. 1 took away all the 4 computers for repairs on 5.5.2008 and were not returned to the complainant after removal of defects. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OPs resisted complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP No. 1 to repair the computers or in the alternative to pay Rs. 1,20,000/ -, price of the computers along with Rs. 5,000/ - for harassment and mental agony. OP No. 4 was directed to pay Rs. 2500/ - for mental agony and all OPs were directed to pay Rs. 1,000/ - as legal expenses. Appeal filed by the OP No. 1/Respondent No. 1 was allowed partly and order of District Forum allowing Rs. 1,20,000/ - was modified and substituted by Rs. 30,000/ - and rest of the order was affirmed against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.

(3.) PERUSAL of record clearly reveals that in response to the notice of Respondent No. 1, petitioner vide letter dated 28.6.2008 admitted that on 5.5.2008 one system (computer), which was taken for repairs was not returned. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has put much stress on the word 'izkIr fd;sa' tried to submit that this word cannot be used for single computer. Admittedly, this receipt is of 5.5.2008 and in reply dated 28.6.2008, this receipt dated 5.5.2008 has been referred by which only one system was taken by OP No. 1 for repairs. In such circumstances, it becomes clear that merely by using plural word it cannot be inferred that 4 computers were taken by Respondent no. 1 for repairs. Petitioner is bound by its admission in reply dated 28.6.2008 and learned State Commission has not committed any error in modifying District Forum's order and reducing amount to Rs. 30,000/ - from Rs. 1,20,000/ -. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.