SATNAM REFREGERATION And ELECTRICALS vs Rajesh Kumar

ON a complaint of Rajesh Kumar, the District Forum- 11, Chandigarh, ordered on 1.1.1998 that the complainant shall handover the defective air- conditioner to the respondent and that the later shall refund the sum of Rs. 22,500/- which was the price charged. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been preferred.

BRIEFLY the facts as alleged are that Rajesh Kumar purchased one air-conditioner of 1.5 ton capacity on 26.9.1991 on payment of Rs. 21,000/-. It was installed at the premises of the complainant in Sector 32D, Chandigarh. The respondent only issued a cash memo for Rs. 11,900/- in respect of the price of the compressor. The landlord did not allow that Rajesh Kumar should instal the air-conditioner because there was an apprehension of excessive load at the premises. The complainant kept the air- conditioner in an un-utilised condition and on 31.5.1994 he requested M / s. Satnam Refregeration & Electricals to instal it at the new premises in Sector 32D, Chandigarh. However, he demanded a sum of Rs. 2,250/- for effecting service and repairs. A dispute arose between the parties. The matter was also referred to at Police Station, Sector 26, Chandigarh, where the parties were required to appear. Under pressure of the police, the dealer provided a new air-conditioner on 10.7.1995. It has been alleged that this also did not work satisfactorily and it was thereafter that the complaint was instituted. The learned Counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the District Forum decided the complaint on l.9.1998 and the appeal instituted on 15.10.1998 is time-barred. Today, the learned Counsel for the appellant has placed on record the postal envelope which carried copy of the judgment and it shows the postal stamp bearing date of delivery as 17.9.1998. Thus, the plea of limitation cannot be sustained.

A perusal of the record shows that only a compressor was sold to Rajesh Kumar vide receipt No. 512 dated 26.6.1991 for Rs. 11,900/-. It does not indicate that an air-conditioner was sold or that a sum of Rs. 21,000/- was either paid in cash or through Bank. The contention that some people issue only receipt in respect of the compressor and charge full price at the time of delivery or installation of the air-conditioner is not acceptable. There was no bar for the complainant to insist for a clear receipt for the full price.

IT is apparent that only a compressor was sold by the appellant and that too on 26.9.1991. The plea that it was not utilised at all for 2 or 3 years does not signify any deficiency on the part of the appellant. Thus, it is clear that the complainant has not come to the Forum or this Commission with clean hands. If there was any defect in the compressor purchased on 26.6.1991, the complainant was expected to approach the Forum within a period of 2 years in respect of the transaction. In the circumstances of the case, the second air-conditioner obtained with the help of police cannot be considered a substitute for the transaction dated 26.6.1991 which was only in respect of a compressor. The installation of the compressor purchased in June, 1991 after a period of 2 years cannot be considered to be a circumstance to establish that the compressor was not giving proper service. The re-charging of the gas which was required on 31.5.1994 as mentioned in the estimate for a total sum of Rs. 2,255/- Annexure C2 shows that it was brought to the dealer after the expiry of the period of warranty as well as beyond the period of limitation for filing of complaint u/Sec. 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. Thus, after taking into consideration all these reasons, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order is hereby set aside. Appeal allowed.