AMTREX AMBIENCE LTD. vs ALPHA RADIOS

THIS First Appeal is directed against the Order of the State Commission, Delhi, dated 25th June, 1993 allowing the complaint and directing the Opposite Party to remove the defects in the air-conditioner and also pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as damages to the Complainant for harassment and mental torture.

THE facts alleged in the complaint are these: M/s. Paras Lubricants (P) Ltd. had booked an order on 3.2.1992 with M/s. Alpha Radios, Chandni Chowk, Opposite Party No. 2 for Amtrex Shizuka Split type air-conditioner manufactured by M/s. Amtrex Ambience Ltd., the 1st Opposite Party. Opposite Party No. 2 is the dealer of the manufacturer, Opposite Party No. 1. A bill bearing No. 35832 dated 13.2.1992 for Rs. 91,355/- inclusive of installation and service charges was raised against the Complainant and was paid and the air-conditioner was supplied. The air-conditioner was got installed in the office of the Complainant by M/s. Techno Air conditioning and Refrigerators Engineers. It was alleged that after complete installation of the air conditioner the machine did not give satisfactory services as there arose numerous defects in the machine for which the Complainant informed the 1st Opposite Party personally as well as through numerous letters written praying for rectification of defects and proper maintenance of the machinery. According to the Complainant the Opposite Parties did not remove the defects in the system of the air conditioning nor restored the proper functioning of the machinery during the period of warranty. The Complainant alleging a deficiency in service filed a complaint before the Delhi State Commission. The State Commission issued notices to the Opposite Parties but they did not appear in spite of service and consequently they were proceeded against ex-parte. The State Commission on the basis of the material on record came to the conclusion that the machinery was purchased by the Complainant for commercial purpose and thus the Complainant is not a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The State Commission, however, came to the conclusion that the Opposite Parties not only supplied the machinery but also installed it and they were liable to rectify all the defects found during the warranty period but, they failed to do so as is clear from the affidavit of the Complainant. The State Commission held that this act of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service and consequently the State Commission extended the period of warranty for one year more from the date of the Order and directed the Opposite Parties to remove all the defects in the air conditioning system and also grand Rs. 10,000/- as damages to the Complainant for harassment.

WE have gone through the records, particularly the grounds of appeal. It is pleaded that the ex-parte order was unjustified because the Appellant was not in the knowledge of the date of hearing, as the Advocate of the Appellant did not inform the Appellant about it and there was no communication from the State Commission to the Appellant fixing the date of hearing. This submission is stated to be rejected. The Appellant was duly served and had put in appearance through and Advocate and if the Advocate did not inform the Appellant about the date of hearing and the Advocate did not appear before the State Commission on the date of hearing fixed, no fault can be fount with the State Commission in proceeding ex-parte against the Appellant. The next submission is that the Complainant is not a consumer and therefore he cannot have any claim under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This Commission has in several cases already taken the view where the allegations of the Complainant was that there was malfunctioning of the machinery/equipment during the period of warranty when the manufacturer had undertaken to keep the machinery in good working condition, even if sold for commercial purpose, the purchaser will certainly be a consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) in respect of services rendered or to be rendered by the seller for the proper functioning of the machinery/equipment, system during the period of warranty. The Complainant had filed an affidavit to the effect that the Opposite Parties failed to rectify the defects in the malfunctioning of the air conditioning system during the warranty period.

FOR the above reasons the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000/-.