Harmohinder Singh                 ...  Petitioner
Vs
Anil Sehgal & Anr.                  ...  Respondents

Before: 
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suhas C. Sen, President, Dr.(Mrs.) R.Thamarajakshi, Member, Mr. S.P.Bagla, Member, Hon'ble Mr.Justice C.L.Choudhry, Member, Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.K.Mehra, Member

C.L.Choudhry, J. Member

This order will dispose of the two Revision petitions - Revision Petition No. 949 of 1996 and Revision Petition No. 955 of 1996 arising out of identical facts and circumstances. It will be sufficient to state the facts in one of these Revision Petitions.

The Complainant purchased 1.5 Ton air-conditioner from the Opposite Party (Petitioner herein) for Rs.15,000/- vide receipt dated 16-2-1990. Soon thereafter, the air-conditioner started giving trouble as compressor of the said air-conditioner was not working properly. A complaint was made to that effect with the opposite party who failed to rectify the defects nor replaced the defective compressor. Notice dated 1-9-1990 also went in vain. In these circumstances, the complainant approached the District Forum for refund of Rs.15,000/- paid to the opposite party for the purchase of the air-conditioner and also claimed damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.

The claim was contested on behalf of the opposite party by filing the written statement wherein it was stated that the receipt clearly showed one-and-half ton Shriram unit of original sealed compressor was supplied to the Complainant for a sum of Rs.15,000/- only which was checked by the Complainant at the time of installation. No complaint was made by the Complainant and he used the machine for the whole of summer 1990. Notice was given only on 1-9-1990 at the end of the season. The Opposite Party denied his liability to replace the compressor as he was not the manufacturer. There was no deficiency in service as whenever he was called by the Complainant, he had put the machine in order and the air-conditioner was working properly. It was also pleaded that the cost of the compressor in 1990 was only Rs.8,000/-. There were other accessories in the air-conditioner which were still working and the claimant could not claim the refund of Rs.15,000/-. The compressor was in sealed condition and was checked by the Complainant thoroughly at the time of installation and only after satisfaction he paid the price.

On 23rd March, 1992, the District Forum directed the Respondent to send his mechanic at the Complainant's premises for check-up of the air-conditioner in dispute and rectify the defects, if any. The Opposite Party visited the complainant's house on 26th March, 1992 and submitted a

written report on 7th April, 1992 stating that the air-conditioner was inspected and found to be in working condition. The District Forum after analysing the material placed on record came to the conclusion that the compressor was not manufactured by the Opposite Party, he could not be held responsible for its manufacturing defects and consequently the complaint was dismissed.

The Complainant approached the State Commission by way of an appeal.. The State Commission allowed the appeal and the Opposite Party was directed in pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in each case to compensate the complainant for the deficiency as well as inconvenience to which the Complainant was put. The Opposite Party has assailed the order of the State Commission by filing this Revision Petition.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It was contended that the State Commission on insufficient grounds set aside the well considered order of the District Forum. It was proved on the record that the compressors supplied were in sealed condition and the Complainants had enjoyed the use of the air-conditioners for the whole of the season. The State Commission committed an error in assessing the damages as the cost of the compressor was only Rs. 8,000/- and even then a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- had been allowed for each of the air-conditioners. The State Commission totally ignored the fact that the Opposite Party was not a manufacturer and was only an assembling unit and could not be held liable for such a heavy compensation. On the other hand, the counsel for the Respondent contended that the order passed by the State Commission was justified under the facts and circumstances of the case.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire controversy. The State Commission has elaborately discussed the evidence placed on record of the case. The State Commission after appraisal of the entire material placed on record came to the conclusion that the opposite Party withheld the material which went to establish that the compressors used in the two air-conditioners were not original, and sealed units but were second hand pieces having been repaired. The dealer could not avoid his liability simply on the ground that he was not the manufacturer. It was his responsibility to carry out the terms of thewarranty and in turn he may involve the manufacturer in fulfilling their obligations under the warranty. We see no flaw in the reasoning given by the State Commission. The finding of the State Commission is based on correct appreciation of the evidence and calls for no interference. It is affirmed. The State Commission has awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/-. From the record it appears that the price of the compressor at the time of its sale was Rs.8,000/- and the Complainant had used the air-conditioner for the summer season of 1990 and the compressor is still with them. We feel, it will meet the ends of justice it we reduce the compensation from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.6,500/-. The Revision Petitions are partly allowed and the order of the State Commission is modified in the extent indicated above. The Revision Petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,500/- in each of these cases to the Complainant concerned, i.e., Anil Seghal and K.L.Seghal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Failing which, he shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. till the date of payment. In the circumstance of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. This order shall dispose of both the Revision Petitions.