CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI



REVISION PETITION NO. 165 OF 2008 Date of filing : 19/12/2008

IN REC. APPL. NO. 14 OF 2007 Date of order : 17/03/2009

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 255 OF 2002

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : MUMBAI SUBURBAN



Dr.B.M. Sethna

Shanty Kuteer,

215, Marine Drive,

Mumbai – 400 020. … Petitioner/org. complainant

V/s.

M/s.Computer Data Products

Thru Nilesh Sakaria,

Shantashram Building,

299, Tardeo Road, Nana Chowk,

Mumbai – 400 007. … Respondent/org. O.P.


Corum : Justice Mr.B.B. Vagyani, Hon’ble President
Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Judicial Member

Present: Mr.Manish Upadhye, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.A.V. Patwardhan, Advocate for the respondent.

- : ORAL ORDER :-
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Judicial Member

This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 18/11/2008 passed in Execution Proceeding bearing No.14/2007 Dr.B.M. Sethana V/s. M/s.Computer Data Products, by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum.

Execution Proceedings were filed against the order/award dated 24/11/2006 passed in consumer complaint No.255/2002. As per the said award, non-applicant/judgement debtor was asked to rectify the defects to the satisfaction of the expert of else to replace the system of Computer. Accordingly, in Execution Proceedings, M/s.Dytel Services was appointed as an expert and it examined the computer system in question. Report dated 27/08/2008 and further Report dated 10/09/2008 are on record. They have reported various components of the computer system ‘OK’, but for 3 components i.e. C.P.U.- Modem, C.P.U. - U.S.B. and Printer, as more particularly detailed in the report dated 10/09/2008.

After hearing rival claims of both the parties to the Execution Proceeding, as per impugned order, Executing Forum gave following directions :-

“ ORDER

1. The opponent is directed to rectify the defects in Printer, Modem and USB to the full satisfaction of the Commissioner or fresh replacement of the units be provided. Else, the cost of these units be paid to the complainant after deducting depreciation to the extent of 40% within ten days from the date of receipt of this order. Else the opponent is liable for 12% interest p.a. on the present cost of the said units/parts w.e.f. 18/11/2008 till the date of compliance of this order.”



We heard Mr.Manish Upadhye, Advocate for the petitioner/org. complainant and Mr.A.V. Patwardhan, Advocate for the respondent/org. O.P.

Perused the record.

Looking to the history and the clear opinion expressed by the expert, supra, we find the impugned order is perfectly legal and proper and no fault could be found in it. Revision Petition is misconceived. Hence, we pass the following order :-

-: ORDER :-

1. Revision Petition stands dismissed.

2. No order as to costs.

3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.





(S.R. Khanzode) (B.B. Vagyani)

Judicial Member President