AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
DELAY of 5 days in filing revision petition is condoned.
THE petitioner/opposite party sold a computer manufactured by Wipro Voyager for Rs. 47,000 to the respondent/complainant on 16. 8. 2009. Later on realizing that the rate for colour monitor ought to have been quoted separately the petitioner demanded Rs. 8,600 towards cost of colour monitor which the respondent agreed to pay. On 2. 10. 2000, computer was installed in the office of the respondent. Warranty period one year. During the warranty period the computer developed some problems. Since the petitioner failed to rectify the defects despite their being brought to its notice, the respondent filed complaint seeking compensation which was contested by the petitioner. The District Forum allowed the complaint with direction to the petitioner to pay amount of Rs. 47,000 with interest @ 12% from the date of complaint to the respondent vide order dated 31. 7. 2000. Appeal filed against District Forum''s order by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission by the order dated 22. 6. 2005. It is this order which is being challenged in this revision. Submission advanced by Mrs. Kiran Suri for petitioner is that (i) petitioner was a dealer and liability for refund of the price of the computer was that of manufacturer who was not impleaded as a party in the complaint and (ii) since no internet facility was available at Yadgir at the time the computer was installed the respondent did not have internet account and the allegation of modern being defective was without any basis.
Respondent did not have any privity of contract with the manufacturer of the computer and, therefore, joinder of the manufacturer as a party in the complaint was not at all necessary. During the course of argument Mrs. Suri has conceded that the plea at (i) above had not been taken in the written version by the petitioner. In absence of plea at (ii) above the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise it now nor can it be considered. There is no ground to interfere with the orders passed by Fora below in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.