Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar – Hon’ble Member: (1) This appeal takes an exception to an order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Raigad, (‘Forum below’ in short) dated 27.04.2010 in Complaint No.22/2010, Dr.Devendra Pandurang jadhav V/s. Shri Hemal Shaha. (2) Facts in brief leading to this appeal can be summarized as under: On 14.03.2009 Complainant had repaired his computer from the Opposite Party by using some old parts and adding new parts from the Opposite Party and the Complainant had paid the cost to Opponent and Opponent had given a warranty of one year. However, there was problem in the computer on 16.03.2009. The Opposite Party repaired the computer after 15 days. Again after 15 days there was a problem in the computer. In July, 2009 the computer stopped functioning. The employees of the Opposite Party tried to repair the computer, but, it could not be repaired. Finally, the Opposite Party had taken the computer to his shop and after one month, after repairing the C.P.U. charged Rs.550/- from the Complainant. However, the Opposite Party had not given any receipt. The Opposite Party could not repair the computer to the satisfaction of the Complainant and hence, the Complainant had issued him notice. As there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party the Complainant filed consumer complaint praying for compensation of Rs.15,500/-. The Forum below after hearing both the parties has dismissed the complaint filed by the Complainant vide order dated 27.04.2010. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Forum below, the present appeal is filed by the original Complainant. (3) Appellant personally argued the matter and the Respondent was present through Advocate – Mr.Mujib Khan. (4) Admittedly, the Appellant’s computer was old one. The Respondent has repaired the same, using the old parts and adding some new parts. The Respondent had given a warranty of one year. It is the contention of the Appellant that during the period of warranty there should not have been any problem to the computer. On the contrary, it is the contention of the Respondent that warranty was for the new parts used by the Respondent. Nobody will give the warranty for the old parts. The appellant himself has admitted that the Respondent had deputed his technical person whenever there was a problem in the computer. (5) The Appellant mainly relies on the affidavit filed by one Shri Santosh Vasant Mahadik, who is a computer expert. In his affidavit, Shri Mahadik stated that the problem in the computer was because of the new parts used at the time of repair. In fact, nowhere the so called technical expert stated that the problem was because of the repair. On the contrary without adding any new part or replacing the old part, after replacing the battery the computer started functioning. In the circumstances, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent. The Forum below after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case has passed an order and we do not find any infirmity in the order. We hold accordingly and pass the following order: O R D E R (i) Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The order of the Forum below is hereby confirmed. (iii) No order as to costs. | 
