1. The present revision petition has been filed by the complainant against the order dated 16.02.2008 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal no. 23 of 2018, whereby his appeal against the order dated 29.11.2017 of the District Forum dismissing his complaint, was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant purchased three products vide invoice dated 26.10.2012, namely, Gaming Keyboard Logitech G 105 for Rs.2476/-, (ii) Codeless Keyboard Logitech K 800 for Rs. 4857.14/- and (iii) Joystick Logitech Attack-3 for Rs.904.76/-. Logitech Gaming Keyboard was under one year warranty which expired on 25.10.2013. According to the complainant, certain defects developed in all the three products and he sent e-mail to the respondents regarding denial of service and misbehaviour by respondent no.1-service centre. Complainant was refunded Rs.4857/- on 10.03.2014 towards Logitech wireless keyboard K 800. He requested for refund of the amount paid towards remaining two products amounting to Rs.3793/- as he was facing some trouble with the said products. He also claimed sum of Rs.55,288/- and interest @ 12% p.a. on the said amount. Later on, he amended the complaint and in the prayer clause he claimed replace / return of the products.

3. Parties led their evidences and after evidences were led, District Forum passed the following order:

“It is admitted by the complainant that amount of Rs.4857/- in respect of Logitech wireless keyboard K800 wireless keyboard has been refunded before filing of the complaint. The complainant has not mentioned any trouble with the other two products of the invoice in any of the e-mails sent to OP, nor any job sheet regarding the same has been placed on record. The complainant has raised objection as to Logitech wireless mouse M23. The job sheet in this regard dated 13.03.2014 has been filed on record. OP has agreed time and again for the replacement of the said product. However, the complainant refused to accept the same.”

Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requires defective products to be replaced or refunded. The complainant in spite of getting offer of replacement, refused to accept the replacement and filed a complaint in this consumer forum.

It is clear that out of four products which complainant brought one was replaced, no complaints were made regarding other two and the fourth product was offered to be replaced. OPs were ready to refund amount during the proceeding of the forum the said offer was refused by the complaint. Moreover, the allegations of complainant are vague and indefinite as no specific defect has been mentioned in the complaint. It appears that the complaint was filed with the sole purpose to harass to the opposite parties. As no deficiency can be conferred on OP, the complaint is dismissed.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, appeal was filed. After hearing the parties, State Commission dismissed the appeal. State Commission recorded the following reasons:

7. The District Forum observed that section 14 Consumer Protection Act requires defective products to be replaced or refunded. Inspite of getting offer of replacement complainant refused to accept the replacement and filed a complaint in the consumer forum. During proceedings before the Forum OP offered to refund the amount which was refused by the complainant.

8. The District Forum also found that allegation of the complaint were vague and indefinite as no specific defect has been mentioned in the complaint. It appeared that complaint was filed with sole purpose to harass the OP. As no deficiency can be conferred on OP, the complaint was dismissed.

5. This order is impugned by the complainant / petitioner stating that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party since they refused to repair / refund the defective two products. It is, however, clear from the findings of the Fora below that opposite parties had been offering the petitioner refund of the cost of those products and they had already refunded the cost of one product. It is also apparent that in any of the e-mail, which he sent to the respondents, he had not mentioned any defect in the other two products of the invoices. It is also apparent that no job sheet regarding the same has been placed o

n record and that petitioner has failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. However, since the respondents had been ready as observed by the Fora below to refund the cost price of other two products, it is hereby directed that an amount of Rs.3793/ shall be refunded by way of demand draft to the petitioner by the respondents within four weeks after the expiry of period of SLP. 6. With these directions, the revision petition stands disposed of.