PARAS LUBRICANTS (P) LTD. vs AMTREX AMBIENCE LTD.

BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased in February, 1992 an Amtrex Shizuka Split type air-conditioner at a price of Rs. 91,355/- from M/s. Alpha Radios, respondent No. 2. The authorised dealer of M/s. Amtrex respondent No. 1, the manufacturer of the air conditioner. The A.C. was got installed in the office of the complainant by them through M/s. Techno Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Engineers and it was commissioned in July, 1992. It is alleged that there were various defects in the air-conditioner, which the respondents failed to rectify inspite of various visits of their engineers. Consequently they have prayed for the refund of total cost of the machine amounting to Rs. 91,355/- and damages amounting to Rs. 50,000/-. The complaint has not been contested. Notices were issued to the respondents but they did not appear inspite of service. Consequently, they were proceeded against ex-parte.

THE first question that arises for determination is as to whether the complainant is a ''consumer'' as defined in Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act. Under the said clause consumer means a person who buys goods for consideration but does not include a person who obtains such goods for any commercial purpose. THE air-conditioner has been got installed by the complainant in the business premises, therefore in our view it has been purchased for commercial purpose. Consequently, the complainant is not a ''consumer'' as defined in Section 2(1)(d)(i). Reliance has been placed on behalf of the complainant on three cases namely B. Ratnakar Rao v. Automobile Manufactures Ltd. I (1991) CPJ 562, M/s. Jagdamba Rice Mills v. Union of India, I (1991) CPJ 273, M/s. S.A.S. Films v. Bhatia Sehgal Construction Corp., I (1992) CPJ 407. In Ratnakar Rao''s case a jeep had been purchased by a person for self employment. In Jagdamba Rice Mills''s case a telex was got installed in the premises and the charges paid to the department of Telecommunication, Haryana, were ordered to be refunded. It is well settled that the Department of Telecommunications is rendering service to the public. In S.A.S. Films case the complainant had booked one plot of land. In the case of purchase of land from a builder/coloniserit has been held that the builder/coloniser is rendering service to the community. All the above cases are thus distinguishable and, therefore, the complainant cannot take any benefit from the observations therein. Faced with this situation it is contended on behalf of the complainant that the supply and installation of an air-conditioner involve two elements, firstly of sale of goods and secondly of rendering of service during the warranty period. The A.C. is to be maintained by the supplier and in case of service fault, it is to be repaired by them. It is argued that the complainant pointed out several defects after installation namely gas leakage and checking, leakage of drain pipe, water leakage in one window unit, breakage of one fan, hurming of blowers, low cooling etc. The broken fan was changed but the other defects continued despite the fact that the installation engineers visited the premises of the complainant many times.

We have duly considered this argument and find substance therein. The respondents not only supplied the A.C. but also installed it. They were liable to rectify all the defects found during the warranty period. However, it is clear from the affidavits of the complainant that they failed to do so. This act of theirs amounts to deficiency in service. Consequently we extend the period of warranty for a period of one year more from the date of the order and direct the respondents to remove all the defects in the A.C. It will be proper for the respondents to take up the job at once and get the defects removed within the period of six weeks, from the date of the order. We also grant Rs. 10,000-00 as damages to the complainant for harassment and mental torture.

FOR the aforesaid reasons we accept the complaint with costs, extend the period of warranty for a period of one year from the date of the order and direct the respondents to remove the defects in the air-conditioner within a period of six weeks and pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 10,000-00 as compensation within a period of three months from the date of the order. Costs Rs. 2,000/-. It they fail to comply with this order within the said periods action shall be taken against them under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Complaint allowed with costs.