The dealer is liable for selling a sub-standard product, regardless of being an assembling unit and not the manufacturer, and lack of privity of contract with the manufacturer does not exempt the dealer from responsibility.

Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor, President—Appellant is a dealer of air-conditioners running its business under the name and style of M/s. Leo Air Conditioning. Vide impugned order dated 4.6.2003 passed by the District Forum it has been directed to refund a sum of Rs. 19,600/- towards the cost of the air-conditioner which was found to be non-functional from day one beside a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

3. Admittedly the air-conditioner of 1.5 ton capacity was purchased by the respondent on payment of Rs. 19,600/- on 22.7.2001. However, the respondent found that the air-conditioner was of sub-standard quality which fact was brought to the notice of the appellant, upon which the appellant removed air-conditioner for replacement with new one but returned it only after repairing the compressor. Since the air-conditioner did not function at all, the respondent again approached the manufacturing concern who in turn wrote a letter to the General Manager of the manufacturing company mentioning therein that air-conditioner purchased by the respondent was not functioning properly. So much so the compressor fitted in the air-conditioner was knocked out.

4. While assailing the impugned order and challenging its liability the Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is only an assembling unit and assembled unit is completed on the demand and as per wishes of the customer and it cannot be held liable for the fault of the manufacturer. It is further contended that the demand of replacement of the air-conditioner is contrary to the trade practice.

5. As is apparent from the aforesaid facts and the pleas raised by the appellant the air-conditioner purchased by the respondent did not function properly at all and it remained almost non-functional even after repairing of the compressor. Consumer is only concerned about the quality of the article purchased by him. In this case the respondent purchased an air-conditioner from the appellant and, therefore, appellant being the dealer of the manufacturer cannot be absolved from its liability of selling a sub-standard air-conditioner. Since the respondent did not have any privity of contract with the manufacturer it was the appellant from whom the air-conditioner was purchased, which instead of providing comfort became a cause for mental agony and harassment.

6. In view of the foregoing reasons we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same by showing indulgence in reducing the amount from Rs. 19,600/- to Rs. 15,000/- towards the cost of the AC as more than three years have passed since the air-conditioner was purchased and maintain compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and cost of litigation at Rs. 500/- as awarded by the District Forum.

Appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms. The FDR, if any deposited by the appellant, be returned forthwith after completing necessary formalities.

A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

Appeal dismissed.