RAJAN Vs. JANAK SINGH GULERIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has arisen out of the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Kangra, at Dharamshalla dated 31.8.2009 in Consumer Complaint No.314/2007 titled as Janak Singh Guleria v. Rajan and others, as per which the complaint was partly allowed against the appellant No.1 who was directed to refund Rs.18,000 to the respondent along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization. Appellant No.1 was also ordered to pay compensation to the respondent to the tune of the Rs.5,000 for his mental agony, harassment and litigation cost was also quantified at Rs.2,000 which was ordered to be paid by the appellant No.1 to the respondent.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants came before this Commission with the present appeal.

(3.) THE facts as they emerge out of the complaint are that the appellant No.1 approached the respondent at his shop and asked him to purchase Inverter as the appellants are running the business of electrical goods, house wiring, all types of electrical repairs and sale and installation of Inverters. Appellant No.1 approached respondent in the month of December, 2006 for the purchase of Inverter, as a result of which the respondent purchased the Inverter from the appellant No.1, who installed the same in the shop of the respondent on 23.12.2006. The respondent made full and final payment of the said Inverter to the tune of Rs.18,000 to the appellant No.1, who had also given the warranty for one year. Since, the Inverter was defective, so it caught fire when put to use. Resultantly, the same got damaged. The wiring, switches and fittings of electricity in the show room of the respondent was also got damaged due to defect in the Inverter. The appellant No.1 was telephonically informed by the respondent about the defective Inverter, who visited the shop of the respondent and took back the Inverter with a promise to return Rs.18,000 to the respondent which was the cost of the Inverter. But when the money was not returned by the appellant No.1, then on 16.6.2007 the respondent got a notice served upon the appellant No.1 for the return of money. After receipt of notice, the appellant No.1 returned the defective Inverter again to the respondent and told him that he will return the money in the Court only. By filing the complaint before the Forum below, the respondent alleged deficiency in service on the part of appellant No.1.