RADHA COMPANY vs S.ATMARAM GUPTA

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated the 21st day of October, 1998 in O.P. No. 209/1996 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai. The appellant is the opposite party while the respondent is the complainant.

SHORT facts may be related in order to understand the crux of the issue arising for consideration in this action. The A/C machine installed in the premises of the complainant became defective in September, 1994. So he called upon the opposite party to survey the A/C machine and give a quotation for repairing it. The opposite party, after surveying it, gave a quotation for repair in a sum of Rs. 13,515/-. The quotation so made was inclusive of replacement of compressor valued at Rs. 9,150/-. The opposite party removed the A/C machine for effecting repairs by installation of the compressor and re-installed the A/C machine in the complainant''s premises. The machine so installed did not at all function properly and the compressor proved to be defective. The compressor so installed was tested by a private mechanic at the instance of the complainant and after such testing, the compressor was proved to be defective. In such a backdrop and setting, the complainant knocked at the doors of the Forum below alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.

The opposite party in pith and substance would contend that there was no deficiency in service on their part. In fact, after the acceptance of the quotation given by them, they took the A/C machine and repaired it by supplying a new compressor for the A/C machine. To say that the A/C machine so repaired is defective, as has been stated by the complainant, is not correct. The complaint as such is liable to be dismissed.

THE Forum below, after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, recorded a finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and consequent it directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 9,150/- with interest thereon at 12% p.a. from September, 1994 till realization and Rs. 200/- per month for mental agony and discomfort from September, 1994 till the date of payment of the amount and cost of litigation of Rs. 1,000/-. The Forum below also granted a time of one month from 21.10.1998, the date of its order for compliance and in case of non-compliance, the opposite party was directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of award till the date of realization. The complainant was further directed to return the two defective compressors on payment of money to him by the opposite party.

AGGRIEVED by the order as above, the opposite party resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of their choice viz., learned Counsel M/s. V. Balaji and A. Sermaraj. On service of process, the respondent/complainant also entered appearance through a Counsel of his choice viz., learned Counsel M/s. Perumbulavil Radhakrishnan, S.N. Panikar and N. Ramesh. We heard the arguments of learned Counsel Mr. V. Balaji appearing for the appellant/opposite party and learned Counsel Mr. N. Ramesh representing the respondent/complainant. Learned Counsel Mr. V. Balaji, appearing for the appellant was (sic.) contended in making a sole and lone submission as respects the order of the Forum below granting both interest at a substantial rate and also granting of compensation for mental agony and anguish which is not at all permissible in law. But learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant would strike a discordant note. Learned Counsel Mr. Balaji, appearing for the appellant/opposite party, realized that the other grounds he has urged in the Grounds of Appeal, if further urged, will not yield any dividends and that perhaps was the reason he restricted his arguments only as respects the passing of award by the Forum below granting both interest and compensation for the mental agony and anguish. Courts of superior jurisdiction have held on occasions more than one that grant of interest at a substantial rate on the award amount and grant of compensation for mental agony and anguish are not permissible in law and, therefore, only one of these things alone is capable of being granted. Such being the case, the award of the Forum below granting interest at 12% p.a. besides compensation for mental agony and anguish as ordered by the Forum below is not permissible. In this view of the matter, we delete the order of the Forum below as respects the payment of compensation for mental agony and anguish.

THE Forum below awarded costs quantified in a sum of Rs. 1,000/- which we feel is rather reasonable not calling for interference.

THE award of interest at 12% p.a. on the cost price of the compressor is also reasonable not calling for interference. In fine, except to the extent of modification of the order of the Forum below as stated above, the appeal shall stand dismissed in other respects. We make no order as to costs in the appeal on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. The order of ours is required to be complied with by the opposite party within a month from the date of receipt of our order on the return of the two defective compressors by the complainant to the opposite party. Thus there is a direction to the opposite party as well as to the complainant. In case of failure of our direction by either of the parties, the party aggrieved is given the option to invoke the jurisdiction of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Appeal partly allowed.