1. This is an Appeal filed under S.41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the Complainant aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.6.2021 passed by 1st Addl., District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru Urban in C.C. No. 1004/2020 (for short District Forum / Commission and the parties as arrayed in the consumer complaint).

2. The Commission heard the learned Counsel for the Complainant / Appellant on admission and perused the impugned order dated 30.6.2021. Now the point that would arisen for consideration is, whether impugned order passed by Commission below is contrary to the facts and law, required to be interfered in this appeal for the grounds set out in the appeal memo ?

3. In so far as issuance of notice of this appeal is concerned, served on OP, yet he remained absent as such he is recorded as absentee party. The record found with this appeal, in particular the impugned order also discloses OP / Respondent remained absent before the commission below and he is placed ex parte.

4. The Complainant has raised consumer complaint against OP alleging deficiency in service in not protecting the devices given to him from hacking and sought for refund of Rs.35,000 paid towards said services. He also sought for award damages to the extent of Rs.1 lakh, which off course, negated by the Commission below for the reasons recorded in the paragraph 6 of the impugned order.

5. Let us examine Ex - P1/3 receipts, through which the Complainant has paid Rs.35,000 to avail the services of OP, Ex - P2 is the receipt for having received laptop, Ex - P3 is acknowledgement for having received the said laptop, Ex - P4 is a forwarding letter, Ex - P5 is the copy of the report from Truth lab, Ex - P6 is the copy of the certificate issued by Truth lab under S.65 - B of the Indian Evidence Act pertaining to the supply of copy of data downloaded from the Twitter account, submitted by Mr. Lakshminarayana. Thus, upon examination of these documents, Commission below of the view, " - if at all, according to the Complainant, the said devices were given to OP for securing from cyber attacks hacking virus infection and reinstalling the operating system with secure fire war, there should have been an agreement or commitment letter given by OP agreeing to perform a particular act. Though it is stated that he has given comprehensive 15 points of what it has nothing has taken place to one Shuba, that same is also not produced. If the same has been produced this Commission could have come to the conclusion that, OP assured and undertook to do a particular act and the same was not done to hold a deficiency in service." In our view, such reasons could not be said sound reasons as the Complainant has availed the service of OP by paying Rs.35,000 for cyber security. As such, as the Complainant did not have any technical background, he rightly approached M/s. Truth labs to do suitable tests to confirm the actual status of the devices and to this end he had submitted a Samsung mobile and Dell laptop to them. The Complainant has requested them to examine his email accounts and social media accounts and confirm if they were also hacked. Accordingly M/s. Truth lab confirmed that the devices were accessed and remote monitored, in other words hacked. However, the Commission below failed to examine the expert report of M/s.Truth lab who confirmed that Complainant's email account and social media account also continued to remain hacked. It is found from the record that the Truth lab had benefit of examining devices furnished to it which can be found in their report. It is also found in this report as to the expert profile, nature of examination, thereby recorded observations and findings by physical examination of the media along with mobile phone analysis, forensic bit - stream imaging, hard disk analysis, email account and social media account analysis, thereby further recorded inference as 'the data retrieved from the mobile phone marked Q1 indicated that so