Rakesh Pathak vs Hindustan Aircon Pvt. Ltd.

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 8.7.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 461 of 2014, Sh. Rakesh Pathak v. M/s. Hindustan Aircon Pvt. Ltd., by which, appeal was dismissed in limine. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner purchased Split Window Air Conditioner of 1.5 ton capacity having 5 years compressor warranty from OP/respondent. Within warranty period, compressor chalked and complainant requested OP to replace the compressor. As compressor was not replaced, alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum and claimed cost of compressor along with charges of replacement and damages. OP was proceeded ex parte. Learned District Forum after hearing complainant allowed complaint and directed OP to replace new compressor and collect old one and further awarded Rs. 5,000 as compensation for harassment and litigation charges. Appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

HEARD the petitioner in person and perused record. Petitioner who is by profession Lawyer submitted that as District Forum passed order after about 8 months of hearing arguments, complainant got his compressor replaced just one day before the order and as complainant never asked for replacement of compressor, learned District Forum committed error in allowing relief of replacement of compressor and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal in limine; hence, revision petition be admitted.

PERUSAL of complaint reveals that complainant requested OP to replace the compressor. In paragraph 8 of the complaint also complainant alleged that he made several telephone calls to OP to replace the compressor, but that was not done. Complainant had not got compressor replaced before filing complaint, but claimed cost of the compressor along with service charges in the complaint. Learned District Forum has not committed any error in allowing replacement of compressor instead of cost and service charges for replacement because warranty was for replacement of the compressor and complainant by repeated requests requested OP to replace the compressor. In such circumstances, order passed by learned District Forum is in accordance with law.

MERELY because the complainant has got his compressor replaced without intimation to the District Forum, order of District Forum cannot be modified and learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing appeal in limine. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.