IMPORTANT POINT
Purchase money should be refunded if electronic device has permanent defect.

ORDER

C. Viswanath, Presiding Member—The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi(hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Appeal No. 446 of 2014 dated 27.04.2018.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant before the District Forum purchased one desktop for Rs.35,800/- on 12.04.2012 from Opposite Party No. 3. The Complainant alleged that when he used the desktop in his house, blue dump appeared on the screen. Complaint was made on 16.04.2012 which was attended to by an Engineer who charged Rs.500/- . According to the Complainant, the problem again resurfaced and was again attended by the same Engineer who again charged Rs.500/-. The third complaint was made to Manager, HCL Noida, who attended the complaint and informed that all the software loaded by the Company had been deleted and informed that setting mode had been disturbed and that it would not work as a new computer. Fourth time again the same Engineer attended to the complaint and expressed his inability to cure the defects in the computer. Being fed up with the recurring problems with the computer, the Complainant filed a Complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum after considering the evidence, passed an award in favour of the Complainant. The District Forum passed the following directions:-

“We direct the respondent company to pay to the complainant the cost of the computer, i.e., Rs.35,800/-. The Complainant shall return to the respondent the old computer. We further direct the respondent to pay to the complainant Rs.15,000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment caused and cost of litigation if the respondent company fails to pay to the Complainant the cost of the computer as mentioned above within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order the complainant shall be entitled for interest @9% p.a. thereupon from the date of filing of this complaint till it is finally paid.”

3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, the Respondent filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission found no illegality in the order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the Appeal.

4. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and also carefully perused the record.

5. As per record, the Complainant had not gone in Appeal to the State Commission against the order passed by the District Forum, but has now come in Revision Petition to this Commission.

6. In the Revision Petition, the Petitioner stated that when the appeal, vide case No. FA No. 446 / 2014, was on trial, he demanded Rs.3 lakhs as compensation amount to be paid by the Company and the President of the State Commission assured him to compensate the damage but the same was not ordered. The State Commission made no changes in the order of the District Forum with regard to compensation, loss and damage caused to the Complainant.

7. It is seen from the record that the order of the District Forum went in favour of the Petitioner and the Respondent had gone in appeal to the State Commission against the order of the District Forum. The Petitioner had not gone in appeal against the order of the State Commission. The State Commission merely upheld the order of the District Forum. From a perusal of the record it is found that in the averments made before the State Commission also, the Petitioner had nowhere mentioned about his claim for compensation. The State Commission in its order also, makes no mention of the same.

8. The order passed by the District Forum has been upheld by the State Commission and has attained finality. The Revision Petition, therefore, becomes infructuous and is dismissed as such. Revision dismissed.