(1.) This appeal is by the opposite party M/s. Blue Star Limited and Others challenging order of District Forum, Bathinda dated December 9, 1996 whereby complaint filed by District Rural Development Agency, Bathinda through its Project Officer-cum-Addl. Deputy Commission (Dev.) was allowed with the direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation and a sum of Rs.1,000/- as costs of litigation.
(2.) Facts are few and are broadly admitted. Thus, separately pleadings of the parties are not noticed. On January 15, 1996, the complainant purchased two Air-conditioners as manufactured by Blue Star Limited through their dealer M/s. Carewall Enterprises, Bathinda. The machines were not properly functioning that complaints were lodged followed by reminders on January 24,1996, February 17,1996 and April 15,1996. On May 15, 1996 one of the Air Conditioners was replaced. A complaint was filed before the District Forum and before the written statement was filed by the opposite parties, the second Air Conditioner was also replaced on June 19,1996. Thus, on these facts the only question which remained for consideration before the District Forum was regarding quantum of compensation to be allowed to the complainant on account of deficiency in rendering service or in other words removing/replacing the defective Air Conditioners. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that in view of the contradictory stand taken up by the complainant, no finding could be arrived at that tine complainant had suffered monetary loss to the extent of Rs.30,000/-. It was pointed out from the complaint itself that the stand of the complainant was that on account of non-functioning of the Air Conditioners, computers installed by the complainant were damaged and on that account more man a dozen students of the general category who were paying tution fee, left the institution, which caused financial loss. In the reply filed, it was asserted that the complainant could not be a consumer as defined under the Act, as for commercial activities, the Air Conditioners were purchased. It may be observed that this question looses importance as element of commercial activities is only to be considered to the extent of its applicability to the case of purchase of good sand the defects found therein. But in respect of purchase or sale of goods which accompanied with warranty for a specific period, as in the present case 5 years warranty, it is not a simple case of sale of goods, but it is also a case of rendering service for which consideration is charged may be included in the price paid. In the case of deficiency found in rendering service hired for consideration, the element of commercial activity is foreign. As to how many computers were damaged, if any and how much amount was spent in getting them repaired, there is no material produced by the complainant that any finding of actual loss suffered could be arrived at on that account. Likewise, no evidence has been produced as to how many students of general category, who had paid fee, had left the institution and the complainant was compelled to return the fee. Such evidence is not available on the record, to arrive at any conclusion to determine the actual loss suffered.
(3.) On the admitted facts, there was delay of six months in replacing the Air Conditioners. Harassment of course was caused to the complainant as the complainant was unable to use the Air Conditioners for that period. In other words, the entire amount spent for the purchase of two Air Conditioners remained with the opposite parties and the complainant was unable to derive benefit of the same. Although no rigid formula can be laid down to assess compensation in such like matters, however, it would be a just compensation if 18% per annum interest is allowed on the amount of the purchase price of the Air Conditioners, for the period of six months. The total price of the two Air Conditioners purchased on January 15,1996 vide Invoice No.1105 dated 15.1.1996 was Rs.54,843.55. The appellants as stated above would pay 18% per annum interest on the aforesaid amount from January 15,1996 to May 30,1996. This date is so fixed as one of the Air Conditioners was replaced on May 15,1996 and the other on June 19,1996. The opposite parties-appellants would also pay costs of litigation before the District Forum of Rs.1,000/-. The amount is directed to be paid within one month from the receipt of copy of this order, if not already paid. If excess amount has already been paid by the opposite parties, the same would be refunded by the complainant within one month from the receipt of copy of this order. The appeal is disposed of while modifying the order of the District Forum as above. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal. Order modified.