CARRIER AIRCON LTD Vs. SASHI SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to 'as the Act') is directed against order dated 27.9.1999, passed by District Forum No. II in Complaint Case No.405/99, entitled-Smt. Sashi Srivastava V/s. M/s. Carrier Aircon Ltd. and Anr.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal lie in a narrow compass. Respondent No.1 Smt. Sashi Srivastava had purchased an Air Conditioner, manufactured by the appellant, from M/s. Una Sales Agencies (respondent No.2), for a sum of Rs.25,363/- on 31.3.1998. The Air Conditioner, so purchased by the respondent No.1, was installed at complainant's place on 14.4.1998. Respondent No.2 M/s. Una Sales Agencies, through whom the Air Conditioner in question, manufactured by the appellant, was purchased, further charged a sum of Rs.2,800/- towards the purchase of accessories and installation charges. The grievance of the respondent/complainant was that soon after the installation, the Air Conditioner in question was working unsatisfactorily. The respondent/complainant lodged a complaint for the rectification of the defects, thereupon a technician was sent on 14.6.1998 for repairing the Air Conditioner in question and the field service report was given stating that the Air Filter was found badly choked. The respondent/complainant also gave the remarks on the above said report that starting and running noise from the Air Conditioner in question was coming from the very first day and cooling was not satisfactory. Since the Air Conditioner was not giving satisfactory service even after 14.6.1998, the respondent/complainant apprised the above fact to the appellant who again deputed its technician, who inspected the Air Conditioner on 20.6.1998 and gave the report stating- "checked and found unit coils choked. West servicing of the unit done. Filter cleared. Some noise in the fan motor. Needs the replacement. Lubrication problem. " (Underlined by us)

(3.) Thereafter the respondent/complainant wrote a letter to the General Manager of the appellant on 9.7.1998 apprising him of the situation regarding the working of the Air Conditioner and requested for the replacement of the motor. The appellant again deputed its technician on 16.7.1998 for checking the Air Conditioner and replacing the fan motor. The Air Conditioner in question even thereafter did not give satisfactory service and the respondent/complainant again wrote a letter to the General Manager of the appellant on 11.9.1998 requesting for the replacement of the Air Conditioner in question with a new one but no action on the above request of the complainant was taken by the appellant. The case of the respondent/complainant, in the complaint, filed by him before the District Forum was that the Air Conditioner, manufactured by the appellant, and supplied to her by respondent No.2 did not give satisfactory service from the very beginning and due to the defect in the Air Conditioner in question the respondent/complainant suffered both mental and monetarily.