C.S. RAHALKAR vs S. KHANKHOJE

-THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 20.4.2001 in Complaint No. 162/2005 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'' for short) dismissing the complaint of the appellant.

UNDISPUTEDLY, the complainant/appellant purchased a Air Conditioner from the respondent on 28.1.1994. According to the averments in the complaint the warranty period was one year. However, the said Air Conditioner developed defects within 3 months. It was also averred by the complainant that the said air conditioner was not as per the specification and old air conditioner was supplied to him by the respondent. The complaint of the appellant was not duly attended to by the respondent, due to which the complainant got it repaired through Fridge Engineering, Jacob Chal, Link Road, Bilaspur. According to the complainant/appellant he had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 9,250/- towards repairs of the air conditioner. The complainant claimed damages totalling Rs. 1,92,500/- as detailed in the complaint. The complaint was resisted by the respondent. It was averred that the complainant had complained about the defect in the air conditioner after expiry of the warranty period. The complainant also averred that the complainant had initially given a cheque for Rs. 32,500/-, but when the complainant was told by the respondent that stabilizer worth Rs. 3,500/- was also required, the complainant told the respondent to give him an assembled air conditioner and a stabilizer. Accordingly, the assembled air conditioner with stabilizer was given by the respondent to the complainant/appellant. The respondent denied that there was any deficiency in service on his part.

District Forum in the impugned order held that the air conditioner was purchased for commercial purpose. It was further held that the complaint regarding the defect in the air conditioner was not made by the complainant/appellant within the warranty period and that the same was lodged much later on 28.11.2000, and that the defect might have developed in the course of its regular use. It was held that there was no manufacturing defect therein. The complaint was accordingly dismissed.

LEARNED Counsel for the parties were heard and record perused. In this appeal, it was stated on behalf of the appellant that the respondent had given a quotation dated 1.10.1993 for sale of Amtrex Air Conditioner for Rs. 32,500/-. Though the above amount was paid in advance by the complainant/appellant on 28.1.1994 to the respondent yet the air conditioner supplied to him was not Amtrex Air Conditioner but was an assembled air conditioner which was not functioning properly as would be clear from the report of R.N. Dubey of ITI, Koni. It was further urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant, that respondent adopted unfair trade practice and he was, therefore, entitled to compensation.

IN view of the conditions as above, it has to be considered as to whether the respondent is guilty of unfair trade practice? It may be noticed that the quotation dated 1.10.1993 given to the complainant by the respondent is for sale of Amtrex Air conditioner of 1.5 MT capacity for a consideration of Rs. 32,500/-. It would also be clear from the receipt dated 28.1.1994 issued by the respondent that the whole amount as above was paid by the complainant to the respondent on 28.1.1994. It is not in dispute that the air conditioner supplied by the respondent, was not Amtrex. In fact, in the written version itself the respondent admitted that on the request of complainant/appellant he had given a assembled air conditioner to him. Obviously, such a stand cannot be accepted. The explanation given by the respondent that the complainant had asked him to give assembled air conditioner with stabilizer, is not duly supported by any material on record. Moreover, quotation dated 1.10.1993 and the receipt dated 28.1.1994 clearly show that respondent had represented to the complainant and had undertaken to give him an Amtrex Air Conditioner. Instead, he has given him the assembled air conditioner, as was discovered later by the complainant/appellant. It is, therefore, clear that the respondent is guilty of unfair trade practice as defined in Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Consequently, the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the complainant/appellant.

AS regards compensation, it may be noted that according to complainant/appellant he had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 9,250/-. He has also placed on record the bill/receipt for repairs of the said air conditioner. AS reported by K.N. Dubey, ITI, Koni the parts used in the said air conditioner were of local make and sub-standard. Considering the circumstances of the case, it appears just and proper to direct the respondent to pay to the complainant/appellant Rs. 20,000/- as compensation.

ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. It is directed that the respondent shall pay to the appellant Rs. 20,000/- as compensation. The compensation as above shall be paid within 2 months from the date of this order failing which interest @ 10% p.a. shall also be payable thereon by the respondent, from the date of default. The cost of this litigation including that of this appeal is quantified at Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) is also liable to be paid to the complainant/appellant by the respondent. Appeal allowed.