VASUNDHRA Vs. BAL KISHAN GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No.68 of 1986) ("the Act" herein) is directed against the order dated 11.9.89 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in complaint case No.69 of 1989.

(2.) The complainant-respondent filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Act regarding supply of defective water cooler 36-P 100 Model Blue Star, which was purchased vide Bill No.497 dated 25.2.88 from opposite-party No.1 appellant. The price mentioned in the bill is Rs.23,900 for the water cooler and Rs.1,950/- for the voltage stabilizer. The water cooler is said to have been installed at Platform No.2. Sindhi Camp Bus Stand by the mechanics of the Company. It stopped working on 6.4.1988. A report of its poor performance was lodged with the Company on 9.4.88. No action was taken and so a reminder was sent on 26.4.88. Again, a complaint was lodged on 4.7.88 stating that the exhaust fan of the cooler was not working. It was repeated on 12.7.88 and 21.7.88. The Company replaced the motor of the fan of the water cooler on 7.8.88. The water cooler was, however, closed in September, 1988. It was restarted on 3.3.89, but its performance was not satisfactory. A complaint was lodged on 10.3.89. The Company replaced the voltage stabilizer attached to it on 14.3.89. There was leakage of gas and exhaust fan was not working properly. A demand for replacement of the water cooler was made vide letter dated 11.3.89. The Company declined to replace it and assured that some repairs under the guarantee obligations will be made. This was communicated vide letter dated 20.3.89. The complaint was filed on 4.4.89 praying that legal action against the company for the replacement of the water cooler be taken so that the very object behind its installation, i. e. public service at large may be fulfilled. Photostat copies of the bill and letters were filed with the complaint

(3.) The version of the case was filed on 5.7.89 resisting the complaint. It was submitted that the water cooler has no manufacturing defect and it was working properly. It was submitted that it is not used in accordance with the instructions. Reasons connected with the installation were mentioned to show as to why it was not working properly. It was submitted that whenever deficiencies were pointed out, they were removed. It was recorded in the order-sheet dated 17.7.89, as under: "the non-petitioner had sent a letter to the petitioner asking them to make some repairs in the room in which the water cooler is housed. On the last date of hearing we had agreed that the petitioners will have to pay an amount up to Rs.2000/- and the repairs will be carried out by the non-petitioner. It has been agreed by both the sides today that an amount of Rs.2000/- be taken from the petitioners and be kept by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the key of the room in which the water cooler is fixed may be given to the learned counsel for the non-petitioner for the repair of the water cooler within one week. If there is an expense of an amount more than Rs.2000/-, then the same shall be borne by the non-petitioner. After repair of the water cooler it shall be the duty of the non-petitioner to run it in a proper order up to 2 months and then only the amount of Rs.2000/- will be paid to them by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the non-petitioner and if the water cooler does not work properly it shall be the duty of the non-petitioner to replace the compressor and keep the water cooler in working order. Put up for further action on 18.7.89. " On the next day, i. e.18.7.89. the District Forum passed the following order: "lawyers of both the sides are present. The key of the room has been handed over to Shri Prem Surana. Advocate for non-petitioners. The amount of Rs.2000/- is with the Advocate for the petitioners. The cooler is to be repaired in one week failing which the Forum will order for the repair of the cooler at the cost of the non-petitioners. Put up for further steps on 26.7.89. " On the hearing of 26.7.89, the District Forum again passed an interim order which reads as under: "counsels for the petitioner and non-petitioners present. In this matter order was passed on the last date of hearing that the non-petitioners will get the room repaired in which houses the water cooler and will also repair the cooler at their own cost and that was to be completed by today. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that nothing has been done till today and the public is put in difficulty and inconvenience as the water is not being cooled. We have heard both the sides. Looking the attitude of the non-petitioner, we hereby order that the non-petitioner will change the water cooler with new cooler within next 3 days and compliance should be reported to this Forum on 31.7.89, failing which we shall pass further necessary orders in this matter. "