R.K.KAPUR vs R.N.MITTAL

SHRI Rajendra Nath Mittal purchased an air-conditioner from ShriR.K.KapurforapriceofRs.l9,250/-onl9th July, 1991. The air-conditioner did not work in *he 1992-93 summer season. A complaint was filed by Shri R.N. Mittal claiming compensation as well as the price of the air-conditioner paid by him, on the ground that the air-conditioner did not work at all. Earlier, in the first week of June, 1992 Shri Mittal, the complainant-respondent had complained about the non-functioning of the air-conditioner and the supplier took it away from his residence for repair. Despite many letters from Shri Mittal the air-conditioner was not installed in his residence during the summer months of 1992. Having failed in receiving proper service from the supplier of the air-conditioner, Shri Mittal filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II of Delhi which after going through the record decided to adjudicate on the following points. (a) Whether the air-conditioner purchased by the complainant was to be fitted with a new Sri Ram compressor in consideration of Rs. 19,250/-with a warranty for one year, or the air-conditioner sold was an old and used one with no warranty and the price charged was Rs. 16,500/- ? (b) Whether the opposite party was bound to replace the compressor with a new one and repair the air-conditioner without any charge, or the opposite party is entitled to claim repair charges of Rs. 10,500/- besides storage charges, interest and compensation before returning the air-conditioner? (c) Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation claimed?

THE District Forum concluded that the air-conditioner purchased by Shri Mittal, the complainant-respondent was supposed to be fitted with a new Sri Ram compressor for which he had paid Rs. 19,250/- and the opposite party-had given a warranty for one year to carry-out repairs free of cost, if any defect was found during this period. Thereafter the District Forum considered the claim preferred by Shri Mittal, of Rs. 10,000/- for damages, for mental torture etc. and Rs. 100/- per day on account of physical discomfort from the 6th June, 1992 to the 30th July, 1992 the date of filing the complaint which amount came to Rs. 5,300/-. Stating that "looking to the status of the complainant and the conduct of the opposite party the amount claimed appears to be quite reasonable," the District Forum allowed tike amount of the damages as claimed, at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day for the period from 6th June to 30th July, 1992. Discussing further the question of damages for the period after filing of the complaint, the District Forum observed that: "We feel that the change in the season after August as also the stand taken by the opposite party being clear can be taken note of. The complainant could provide himself with an alternative air-conditioner on hire basis and save himself from further discomfort. But, at the same time, we take note of persistence on the part of the opposite party in trying to defend an indefensible case and thereby causing further mental torture to the complainant. We also take note of the attempt on the part of the opposite party to fabricate false evidence. While we refrain from ordering prosecution for fabricating false evidence, we take it into consideration in awarding compensation and costs as it has resulted in prolongation of the trial forcing the complainant to incur more expenses. We are of the considered view that a compensation of Rs. 6,500/- from the date of filing of the complaint and until the date of this order will meet the ends of justice".

IN all, therefore, the District Forum directed the petitioner herein to pay back the price of air-conditioner i.e. Rs. 19,250/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the 19th July, 1991 till the date of payment and a further sum of Rs. 21,800/- as compensation for mental torture, discomfort etc.

SINCE the complainant-respondent Shri R.N. Mittal was the then President of the State Consumer Commission, Delhi, this Commission passed an order on the 12th November, 1993 withdrawing this case to the National Commission for hearing in view of the circumstances explained in the order of the State Commission dated the 27th October, 1993 in Case No. A 498/93. The learned Counsel for the appellant herein repeated the same arguments as were advanced before the District Forum, the main argument being that there was no understanding or agreement to fit this air-conditioner with a new Sri Ram compressor. The contention of the appellant is that the air-conditioner was an old and used one with no warranty and the price charged was Rs. 16,500/-. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and after going through the detailed order of the District Forum we are convinced that there is no substance in this contention. It is true that the air-conditioner was not a branded one or even an absolutely new one; at the same time it is also established beyond doubt that the appellant herein had assured the complainant that the air-conditioner would be fitted with a new Sri Ram compressor and had actually charged Rs. 19,250/- for that purpose as a consideration for the supply of air-conditioner. These type of air-conditioners are indigenously made and are not branded by any known name, but are fitted with the compressors of the brand name as agreed between the buyers and the sellers. On this point, therefore, we see no reason whatsoever to interfere with the findings of the District Forum and hence uphold their order that the air-conditioner being defective the price charged for it at Rs. 19,250/- should be paid back to Shri Mittal along with interest @ 18% from 19th July, 1991 till the date of payment. The air-conditioner, of course, will be returned to the appellant herein on the payment of this amount.

AS regards compensation we feel that the total amount fixed at Rs. 21,800/- by the District Forum under three heads needs to be looked into carefully. The District Forum has awarded Rs. 10,000/- as damages for mental torture, Rs. 5,300/- at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day on account of physical discomfort from the 6th June, 1992 till the 30th July, 1992 and Rs. 6,500/- as compensation from the date of filing of the complaint and until the date of their order, thus making a total of Rs. 21,800/-. In our opinion, this amount is excessive, as Shri Mittal could have saved himself from the discomfort caused to him by not being able to use this air-conditioner in the summer season by hiring another air-conditioner for the relevant period. We find that the average rent for a season for the hire of an air-conditioner is between Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,500/-. We consider that it would be just and adequate compensation to award Rs. 6,500 /-, which would have been the highest rent for hiring an air-conditioner for the season. In addition, a sum of Rs. 3,500/- as costs are awarded to Shri R.N. Mittal inclusive of the costs of this appeal, thus making a total of Rs. 10,000/-. We, therefore, reduce the amount of compensation from Rs. 21,800/- to Rs. 10,000/-inclusive of costs.