AKHILESH VIJAYVERGIYA Vs. STERLING COMPUTERS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS revision is directed against the order dated 24. 4. 1999 of M. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal disposing of the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in terms of the settlement noticed in the joint application filed by the parties.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. Petitioner/complainant had purchased from respondent No. 1/opposite party No. 1 a computer with printer for Rs. 41,000 on 8. 2. 1990. On 5. 7. 1991, the petitioner handed over the printer to respondent No. 2/ opposite party No. 2, Marketing Executive of respondent No. 1-Company for repairs. Respondent No. 2 assessed the repairing charges at Rs. 2,500 out of which amount of Rs. 2,000 was paid by the petitioner and the balance amount was to be paid at the time of taking delivery of the printer after repairs. After writing many letters by the petitioner to respondent No. 2, the petitioner was told on 29. 10. 2001 to collect the computer after making payment of Rs. 3,300. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of respondents, a complaint was filed by the petitioner seeking certain reliefs which was contested by the respondents. It was stated that as the head of the printer was changed the petitioner was liable to pay extra expenditure of Rs. 3,300 which he was not prepared to pay. By the order dated 13. 9. 1993 the complaint was allowed by the District Forum with direction to the respondents to return the repaired printer after receiving the balance amount of Rs. 500 from the petitioner and pay jointly or severally the compensation @ Rs. 1,700 p. m. from 1. 10. 1991 till the date of delivery of printer. Dissatisfied with this order, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed appeal which was disposed of by the order under challenge by the State Commission. Review application No. 18 of 2000 seeking recall of the order dated 24. 4. 1999 filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 31. 3. 2000 by the State Commission as being not maintainable under law.

(3.) MR. Mohan Chouksey, Advocate who represented the petitioner before the State Commission, was allowed to be impleaded as respondent No. 3 in the present revision by the order dated 20. 5. 2004.