Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, the appellant filed an appeal before the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission3.
The appellant remitted a sum of Rs.
The stand of the appellant is that he has got a companyfirmation from M s. Awareness Technologies USA, the manufacturer of the equipment that UPS which the appellant had is suitable but the respondent insisted on installation of 1KVA Online UPS.
Signature Not Verified The appellant placed an order for purchase of TurboChem 100 Unit in Digitally signed by MANISH SETHI Date 2019.04.02 165218 IST Reason response to quotation submitted by the respondent in the second week of 1 NCDRC August 2015.
It is thereafter, the 50 per cent of the price was paid.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Goa at Margao2 dismissed the companyplaint inter alia on the ground that the appellant 2 District Forum has number placed companyy of the order in support of his plea that on board laundry was a part of the equipment.
3, 50, 000/ along with 9 per cent interest as well as damages of Rs.
The equipment was delivered on 30.09.2015.
The State Commission found that the appellant placed an order when the respondent companymunicated their best offer for Turbochem 100 fully Automated Random Access Biochemistry Analyser and also enclosed brochure for reference.
The service engineer pointed out that 1000 mv/650 Watt UPS of APC Company was number suitable and the appellant was advised to purchase 1KVA Online UPS for usage during power failure.
Therefore, the appellant sought payment of Rs.
50, 000/ .
Hemant Gupta J. Leave granted.
3, 50, 000/ towards 50 per cent companyt of the instrument.
The appellant also raised a grievance that there is numberon board laundry facility present on the instrument, therefore, such instrument is of numberuse to him.
The challenge in the present appeals is to a judgment and order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 1 on 14.12.2017 and also an order in Review Petition passed on 04.10.2018.
Since, there was numbercommitment on the part of the respondent to supply on board laundry facility, the companyplaint was dismissed.
