ZENITH COMPUTERS LTD Vs. KIRAN DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

(2.) BASIC facts of the case are not in dispute that the complainant purchased a Zenith Super PCxt System comprising T-1 microlaser for Rs. 1,64,000 in January 1991. It was the complaint of the complainant that the said system remained idle from 25. 4. 1993 onwards on account of non-supply of 'toner' by the petitioner. Correspondences were exchanged between the parties but when the matter was not getting settled, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by this order an appeal was filed before the State Commission, which was allowed in following terms:

(3.) AGGRIEVED by this order the petitioner has filed this revision petition before us. Vide our order dated 25. 11. 2004, the petition was limited to relief Nos. 3 and 4 given by the State Commission. The matter was contested by the parties. Vide our order dated 25. 11. 2004, we had also directed the petitioner to supply spare parts, toner, etc. which had not been delivered on demand, by the petitioner as ordered by the State Commission. As per affidavit filed by the petitioner when they sent this material to the respondent/complainant, they refused to take it.