- (1.) The Opposite Party in C.O.P.283/2003 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), having failed to oppose the claim successfully, has come to this Commission, as appellant.
(2.) The respondent herein as complainant has filed a complaint before the lower Forum, seeking for the recovery, for a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- with cost, accusing the opposite party/appellant, as if they have supplied defective computer, that as agreed, they have also not supplied the necessary accessories, that because of this fact, the complainant who had purchased the computer for her development, unable to do the same effectively, that several complaints also did not yield any satisfactory performance, and that even after the issue of legal notice, the opposite party failed to replace the computer, which amounts to deficiency and this way for his sufferings, she is entitled to the above said sum.
(3.) The appellant/opposite party admitting the purchase of the computer from them by the complainant, would contend that it is incorrect to say that the computer supplied by the opposite party was not functioning properly, that the service engineer who inspected the computer also submitted a report and based on that, the opposite party also offered to replace the 2000 watts speakers with 2500 speakers, that the system is in good condition and only due to the lack of proper knowledge about the system, the complainant is unable to manage the same, that even now the opposite party is ready and willing to rectify the mistake, if any, in the system, thereby, praying for the dismissal of the complaint, denying the other allegations also, disputing the quantum of compensation further.;