BRIG. V.N. CHANNA (Retd.) vs GARGYA RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS

THE present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), assailing the order dated 6.11.2003 passed by District Forum-III, Janak Puri, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 130/2003 entitled Brig. V.N. Channa (Retd.) v. M/s. Gargya Research Instruments & Anr.

THE grievance of the appellant before the District Forum was that the appellant had purchased an inverter from the respondents in an exchange scheme in September 2001 and had also obtained an Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC), on payment of the requisite charges. THE said inverter was not functioning properly and as such the appellant had approached the respondents for having the same repaired and it was on persistent requests that the engineer of the respondent came to rectify the inverter and while attempting to repair the same, damaged the inverter, as well as, the batteries. THEreafter also the appellant''s effort to have the same rectified were futile and as such the appellant approached the District Forum with the prayer that the respondents be directed to replace the inverter and the batteries or in the alternative pay Rs. 25,000/- in lieu thereof, together with Rs. 1 lac as damages and costs. The defence of the respondents in its reply/written version filed before the District Forum was that the appellant had indeed purchased an inverter in the buy-back scheme from the respondents and that the defects if any were duly rectified by the respondent through its qualified engineers and in fact it was the batteries which were defective and since the AMC did not cover the batteries the respondent had advised the appellant to have the same replaced as the same were 1 years old. It was further stated that the respondent was ready and willing to rectify the inverter and as such there being no deficiency on its part, the complaint filed by the appellant was liable to be dismissed with cost.

The learned District Forum on an appraisal of the evidence and material on record held that the respondent had been deficient in service and as such directed the respondent to rectify the inverter or in the alternative pay Rs. 4,000/- being cost of the inverter together with Rs. 2,000/- as compensation, as well as, costs of Rs. 1,000/-.

AGGRIEVED by the quantum of relief granted to him, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Commission. We have heard the appellant on the question of admission of present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. The sole contention of the appellant in the present appeal is that the quantum of relief awarded to him is highly inadequate inasmuch as neither the cost of batteries has been awarded nor adequate compensation for the harassment undergone by him has been granted in his favour. Insofar as the said contention of the appellant is concerned, in our opinion the learned District Forum has already awarded adequate relief to the appellant. It is an admitted fact that the batteries were not covered under the AMC and also that the same were 1 years old at the time the respondent repaired the inverter. As such the learned District Forum was within its rights in declining to grant the price of the batteries to the appellant. Furthermore, vide impugned order the respondents have already been directed to rectify the inverter or in alternative pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- paid as price for the inverter together with compensation amounting Rs. 2,000/- as well as cost of Rs. 1, 000/-. Thus there is no occasion for granting further relief.

THEREFORE, the present appeal filed by the appellant, being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.