SANSKRUT COMFORT SYSTEM LTD Vs. MOHD ANIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned D. F. , Nagaur dated 30.3.1996 whereby the complaint filed by the respondents has been partly allowed and they have been directed to pay a total amount of Rs.3,500/-. Since none of the parties are present and this appeal is pending since the year 1996 we have gone through the material made available on the record by both the parties.

(2.) The grievance of the respondents is that through his guardian Mohd. Suleman; two Symphone model H. V.3000 coller @ 5950/- were purchased on 31.5.1993 for a total amount of Rs.11,900/-. The grievance of the respondents has been that after the purchase of the said coolers they did not render satisfactory services. One of the motor of the cooler got burnt and the pump of another cooler went out of order. The appellants were approached but they did not remove the defects. Finding that both the coolers have not been functioning the respondents approached the learned D. F. to claim the cost of the coolers as also Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony etc. The complaint was resisted by the appellant by filing a written version. The stand of the appellant was that when the respondent complained about the defects they were asked to produce the coupons for services issued at the time of the sale of the coolers but they were not produced. Even after the defects were removed after charging Rs.240/- and thereafter the respondent did not complained about any defects instead approached the learned D. F. It was also urged that the complaint was filed beyond the period of warranty of one year and hence the complaint should be dismissed.

(3.) We have given careful thought and consideration to the controversies raised between the parties. It is apparent that the coolers in question were purchased on 31.5.1993 whereas the complaint was filed on 21.6.1995 that is beyond the period of limitation under Sec.24 A of the C. P. Act, 1986. However the learned D. F. did not dismiss the complaint on this basis instead allowed a total amount of Rs.3,500/- including Rs.2,000/- as deficiency in rendering service and Rs.1,000/- as compensation. In the facts and circumstances of the case we feel that the ends of justice would meet if the amount paid under the head compensation i. e. , Rs.1,000/- is set aside since the respondents had already been allowed Rs.2,000/- for loss of rendering of service. To this extent the appeal succeeds in part with cost on parties. Appeal partly allowed.