CARRIER AIRCON LTD. vs SASHI SRIVASTAVA

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to ''as the Act'') is directed against order dated 27.9.1999, passed by District Forum No. II in Complaint Case No. 405/99, entitled-Smt. Sashi Srivastava v. M/s. Carrier Aircon Ltd. & Anr.

THE facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal lie in a narrow compass. Respondent No. 1 Smt. Sashi Srivastava had purchased an Air Conditioner, manufactured by the appellant, from M/s. Una Sales Agencies (respondent No. 2), for a sum of Rs. 25,363/- on 31.3.1998. THE Air Conditioner, so purchased by the respondent No. 1, was installed at complainant''s place on 14.4.1998. Respondent No. 2 M/s. Una Sales Agencies, through whom the Air Conditioner in question, manufactured by the appellant, was purchased, further charged a sum of Rs. 2,800/- towards the purchase of accessories and installation charges. THE grievance of the respondent/complainant was that soon after the installation, the Air Conditioner in question was working unsatisfactorily. THE respondent/complainant lodged a complaint for the rectification of the defects, thereupon a technician was sent on 14.6.1998 for repairing the Air Conditioner in question and the field service report was given stating that the Air Filter was found badly choked. THE respondent/complainant also gave the remarks on the above said report that starting and running noise from the Air Conditioner in question was coming from the very first day and cooling was not satisfactory. Since the Air Conditioner was not giving satisfactory service even after 14.6.1998, the respondent/complainant apprised the above fact to the appellant who again deputed its technician, who inspected the Air Conditioner on 20.6.1998 and gave the report stating- "Checked and found unit coils choked. West servicing of the unit done. Filter cleared. Some noise in the fan motor. Needs the replacement. Lubrication problem."

(Underlined by us) Thereafter the respondent/complainant wrote a letter to the General Manager of the appellant on 9.7.1998 apprising him of the situation regarding the working of the Air Conditioner and requested for the replacement of the motor. The appellant again deputed its technician on 16.7.1998 for checking the Air Conditioner and replacing the fan motor. The Air Conditioner in question even thereafter did not give satisfactory service and the respondent/complainant again wrote a letter to the General Manager of the appellant on 11.9.1998 requesting for the replacement of the Air Conditioner in question with a new one but no action on the above request of the complainant was taken by the appellant. The case of the respondent/complainant, in the complaint, filed by him before the District Forum was that the Air Conditioner, manufactured by the appellant, and supplied to her by respondent No. 2 did not give satisfactory service from the very beginning and due to the defect in the Air Conditioner in question the respondent/complainant suffered both mental and monetarily.

In the complaint, filed by the respondent/complainant before the District Forum it has been prayed that the appellant be directed to replace the defective Air Conditioner. It was also prayed that the appellant be also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for causing mental harassment and monetary loss including the expenses incurred on the repairs and other items. The complainant also claimed interest @ 24% per annum on the above amount till realisation. The appellant did not care to appear before the District Forum despite service.

THE learned District Forum vide order, being impugned in the present proceedings has held that the appellant and respondent No. 2 had supplied a defective Air Conditioner to respondent No. 1 Smt. Sashi Srivastava and also rendered deficient service to her and consequently has directed the appellant and respondent No. 2 to replace the Air Conditioner within one month and has also directed the appellant and respondent No. 2 to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant/respondent No. 1. It has also been directed that in case the Air Conditioner in question is not replaced within the above said time limit, the appellant and respondent No. 2 would be liable to refund the amount of Rs. 25,363/- plus Rs. 2,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 31.3.1998 till payment. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred the present appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. As already stated the learned District Forum in the impugned order has held that the Air Conditioner in question, manufactured by the appellant and supplied to the complainant by respondent No. 2 was defective and there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and respondent No. 2. In our opinion, in the given facts, more particularly the contents of the documents (Annexures A-III, A-IV, A-V - at pages 18 to 20 of the paper book), which are documents of the appellant, no fault can be found with the above findings of the learned District Forum. The same, in our opinion, suffer from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers.

IN view of the above discussion, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is devoid of substance. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with costs. Costs quantified at Rs. 500/- awarded to the State Legal Services Authority, Delhi. It is directed that the costs in terms of the above order be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority, Delhi within one month and receipt in token of costs having been deposited with the above said Authority be filed in the Registry of this Commission. Appeal dismissed.