DALJIT SINGH WALIA vs GURJIT SINGH GILL

THIS is an appeal filed against the order dated 1.6.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-I). The appellant filed the complaint before the District Forum-I alleging, briefly, that he purchased a big size desert cooler from the opposite party Sh. Gurjit Singh Gill of M/s. Gill Refrigerators, Booth No. 2, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh. The body of the cooler comprising of a tank and the side frames were supplied against a sum of Rs. 8,000/-. Rs. 5,000/- had been paid as an advance and Rs. 3,000/- were to be paid when the cooler was to be installed. The cooler was eventually installed at the residence of the appellant/complainant on 24.3.1997. The cooler, however, was not effective inasmuch as the tank of the cooler started leaking. The complainant apprised this defect to the opposite party/respondent Shri Gurjit Singh Gill who tried to remove the defect but the same could not be done. The representive of the opposite party visited the house of the complainant on 2.5.1997 and took the tank with him with the promise to remove the defect in the tank. The tank was later on reinstalled on 12.5.1997 but the same defect of leaking again developed. The complainant brought this fact to the notice of the opposite party the very next day i.e. on 13.5.1997. The opposite party again sent its representive on 5.6.1997 who took away the cooler on the ground that its repair will be done at the premises of the workshop. The opposite party, however, failed to remove the defect in the cooler. The complainant was aggrieved with the inaction on the part of the opposite party and as such he filed the complaint before the District Forum-I claiming a sum of Rs. 8,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum with effect from the date of its payment till its actual refund. The complainant also claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 2,000/-.

THE opposite party who is the respondent in this appeal filed reply before the District Forum-I and took the stand that the complaint was malafide. THE complainant had failed to make the payment of Rs. 2,500/- for the installation/designing/technical advice and a further sum of Rs. 500/- towards the welding and carriage charges of the water tank of the desert cooler. It was also alleged that the opposite party never rendered any service of raw material like sheets, nuts bolts, insulation materials, frames of cooler or the motors, fans or pumps etc. THE opposite party also did not deal in the business of manufacturing desert coolers. It was contended that the opposite party had simply installed the fan and pump supplied by the complainant in the cooler body, which was got manufactured by the complainant himself and ensured the electrical connections by doing the electrical wiring of the cooler only. The parties led evidence before the District Forum-I in the shape of affidavits. The District Forum-I held the opposite party to be deficient in rendering service to the repair of the tank and assessed the valuation of the tank at Rs. 1,500/- and thus awarded a sum of Rs. 1,500/- as compensation for the tank. Apart from this, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was assessed as compensation for inconvenience to the complainant and costs of complaint case. In aggregate, a sum of Rs. 2,500/- was directed to be paid by the opposite party to the complaint within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. The complainant felt aggrieved against the order of the District Forum-I and has filed this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act). The appeal has been contested by the respondent. The record of the complaint case was summoned from the District Forum-I. The arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent were heard and the order of the District Forum under appeal was perused.

The learned Counsel for the appellant in the first instance pointed out that the learned District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh committed an error on facts inasmuch as the Forum awarded compensation only in respect of the tank and did not take into consideration the frame and other part of the desert cooler minus the exhaust fan and the water lifting pump. The respondent, however, contested this argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant and took this Commission through the specific avernment made in the complaint regarding the opposite party allegedly taking away the tank, which was alleged to be leaking for repairs. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that it is not the case of the complainant that apart from the tank, other parts of the body of the desert cooler were also taken away by the respondent. We have also carefully gone through the averments made in the complaint and we find from perusal of paras 5,6 and 9 that the respon-dent had taken away the tank of the cooler for repair of the tank of seepage in of water of the body of the tank. We may point out that in para 9 of the complaint which is to be read in continuation of the avernments made earlier in para 5, the complainant has used the word cooler being taken away for repairs. In para 10, it was averred that the opposite party did not instal the cooler despite repeated requests. However, it does not appear to be the case of the complainant/appellant that the opposite party had taken away apart from the tank the whole body of the desert cooler excepting the exhaust fan and water lifting pump. In our considered view, the avernments made in para 9 of the complaint is to be read in context of para 5 of the complaint and examined from this angle the case of the complainant/appellant is about the tank of the cooler being taken away by the opposite party for the repair. It is further not the case of the complainant that the other parts of the body of the cooler were also defective.

IN our considered view, the District Forum-I has rightly taken into consideration the tank of the desert cooler being taken away by the respondent/opposite party and has rightly assessed its loss at Rs. 1,500/-. The learned Counsel for the appellant could not show that the assessment of sum of Rs. 1,500/- as the price of the tank was wrongly made by the District Forum-I or that he claimed a higher amount than Rs. 1,500/-. As a matter of fact, the complainant claimed the refund of the entire amount of Rs. 8,000/- paid for the supply of the body of the desert cooler accepting the exhaust fan and water lifting pump. So far as the damages suffered by the appellant regarding the inability of the appellant to use the desert cooler during the summer months, the District Forum has assessed the sum at Rs. 1,000/- which is inclusive of the costs of the complaint and the said amount appears to be quite reasonable and adequate. Resultantly, we find no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed. Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal dismissed.