BHASIN AND CO Vs. AIRSIRCO PVT LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.1994 whereby the complaint of the appellant seeking compensation on account of deficiency in service in repairing two air conditioners was dismissed, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The appellant is an Advocate Company. There is no dispute that the respondent had been entering into service contract for the maintenance of air conditioners of the appellant every year since 1982-83. Every year fresh contract used to be entered into between the parties. According to the appellant the last contract for maintenance of the air conditioners was executed on 12.3.1993 for a period from 7.4.1993 to 6.4.1994. However, according to the respondent this was not a concluded contract but an offer from the respondent to enter into service contract with the appellant for maintenance of their five air conditioners in consideration of Rs.10,450/- and since the aforesaid offer was not accepted nor was the said amount paid by the appellant the alleged contract did not come into existence. On the letter of offer following note was appended by the respondent: "please note that payment is essence of the contract and this contract will become valid only on receipt of full payment".

(3.) However it is admitted that the respondent took two air conditioners of the appellant on 10.5.1993 for repairs. One air conditioner was returned after repair on 25.6.1993 whereas the second air conditioner was returned on 10.8.1993. Merely because the contract between the parties was not concluded on account of payment of consideration amount did not absolve the respondent from the allegation of deficiency in service because once they had taken two air conditioners for repairs, the respondents were expected to take reasonable time to repair the air conditioners irrespective of their being no concluded contract. It appears that the respondent took these air conditioners for repairs because of their past relations with the appellant and service provided by them for continuous 10 long years. Inordinate time taken by the respondent for repairing the air conditioners and returning them after more than 1 and three months respectively entitles the appellant to a compensation for deficiency in service and the mental agony and harassment suffered by the appellant.