Shirish vs C S Rahalkar

DISPUTE Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as ''the District Forum'' for short), has filed the present Revision Petition against the Order of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'' for short) in First Appeal No. 336 of 2003.

BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are:

RESPONDENT-complainant purchased an air-conditioner from the petitioner on 28.1.1994. The said air-conditioner had a warranty for one year. It developed certain defects within 3 months of its purchase. Respondent approached the petitioner for its repair and, according to the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioner did not attend to the air-conditioner properly. It was also alleged that the air-conditioner was not as per the specifications given by the petitioner to the respondent at the time of purchase and, instead, an assembled air-conditioner was supplied to the respondent. That as the petitioner did not attend to the complaint, respondent got it repaired through Fridge Engineering, Jacob Chal, Link Road, Bilaspur and incurred an expenditure to the tune of Rs. 9,250 on the repair of the air conditioner. Respondent, thereafter, filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service and claiming damages totaling to Rs. 1,92,500.

ON being served, petitioner filed its Written Statement. It was averred that the respondent had initially given a cheque in the sum of Rs. 32,500 but when the respondent was told that the stabilizer worth Rs. 3,500 was also required, the respondent told the petitioner to supply an assembled air-conditioner and a stabilizer and, accordingly, an assembled air-conditioner with stabilizer was supplied. Thus, petitioner denied any deficiency in service on its part.

DISTRICT Forum, after taking into account all the evidence and pleadings led by both the parties, dismissed the complaint and held that respondent had purchased the air-conditioner for a commercial purpose. It was further held that the complaint regarding the defect in the air-conditioner was lodged on 28.11.2000 much after the expiry of warranty period and that the defect might have developed in the course of its regular use. It was held that there was no manufacturing defect in the air-conditioner and, accordingly, the complaint was dismissed

BEING aggrieved by the Order passed by the District Forum, respondent filed an Appeal before the State Commission. State Commission allowed the Appeal and held that the petitioner had given a quotation to the respondent on 1.10.1993 for sale of Amtrex air-conditioner for Rs. 32,500. Though the said amount had been paid by the respondent-complainant on 28.1.1994, yet the air-conditioner supplied to him was not Amtrex air-conditioner but was an assembled air-conditioner and the same was not functioning properly. For coming to this conclusion, the State Commission relied upon the Report of Shri R. N. Dubey of I.T.I., Koni. The State Commission reversed the Order passed by the District Forum and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000 by way of compensation within 2 months from the date of Order failing which interest @ 10% p.a. shall be payable thereon by the petitioner from the date of default. Rs. 1,000 were awarded as cost of litigation.

ADMITTEDLY, in the quotation for supply of air-conditioner, the petitioner had agreed to supply Amtrex air-conditioner of 1.5 tonne capacity for a sum of Rs. 32,500. Delivery of the air-conditioner was to be given after 3 weeks of the receipt of the entire payment. It is not in dispute before us that the air-conditioner supplied to the respondent was not an original Amtrex air-conditioner but an assembled air-conditioner. For an assembled air-conditioner, the price was much less. The respondent had paid Rs. 32,500 for an original Amtrex air-conditioner and not an assembled air-conditioner. The State Commission has rightly held the petitioner guilty of unfair trade practice as defined under Section 2 (l)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, consequently, directed the petitioner to compensate the respondent for the same.

WE agree with the findings recorded by the State Commission and find no infirmity in the same. Dismissed. Since, respondent is not present, we are not making any orders as to costs. R.P. dismissed.