Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
Amtrex Hitachi Appliance Ltd. and Anr. —Appellants
versus
M/s. Stic Travels Pvt. Ltd. —Respondent
First Appeal No.308 of 2009
(Against the Order dated 26/11/2008 in Complaint No. 14/2004 of the State Commission Delhi)
Decided on 12.10.2018
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. Satish Rai, Proxy counsel for Mr. Rishi Kapoor, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Amrit Pal Singh, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
When there are defects in the system supplied and the supplier has not affected the repairs properly it amounts to deficiency in service and is liable to pay compensation.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21—First Appeal—In the year 2002, the respondent herein approached the appellants for an Air-conditioning Scheme for air-conditioning of their premises at C-14, Westend, New Delhi—The total value payable for the equipment was Rs.19,37,820 inclusive of all taxes and duties and the cost of ancillary work was Rs.2,12,180—An agreement was also entered into between the parties—Subsequent to the installation of the Air Conditioners in the premises of the complainant, the same was not giving cooling effect and therefore, the appellant was informed to rectify the same—Inspite of several demands to get the same rectified, the appellant has not done so, hence, a legal notice was issued by the complainant which was refuted by the appellant in the reply notice—Hence, a complaint was filed which was allowed by the State Commission—Hence, the present appeal—Heard the counsels, perused the documents—It is clear from the correspondence that the system is defective as can be seen from the report of their Engineers—Complainant installed extra systems at a cost of Rs. 5,40,000/- but the systems did not function properly—Hence, the appeal is partly allowed modifying the orders of the State Commission directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 5,40,000/- paid extra within 45 days failing which interest at 8% has to be paid together with costs of Rs. 25,000/-.
Result: Appeal is partly allowed modifying the orders of the State Commission.
This appeal has been filed by the appellants Amtrex Hitachi Appliances Ltd. & Anr. against the order dated 26.11.2008 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in C-14/2004.
2. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 2002, the respondent herein approached the appellants for an Air-conditioning Scheme for air-conditioning of their premises at C-14, Westend, New Delhi. Under the Scheme, the total value payable for the equipment was Rs.19,37,820/- inclusive of all taxes and duties and the cost of ancillary work was Rs.2,12,180/-. On 28.8.2002, appellants and the respondent entered into an agreement whereunder the appellants were to implement the above mentioned scheme at the premises of the respondent for the consideration mentioned above. At the time of entering into the agreement, the total cost of the equipment as mentioned above and 50% of the amount regarding the ancillary work was paid to the appellants by the respondent. On 07.07.2003, the respondent wrote a letter making allegations against the appellants that the air-conditioning system installed by the appellants was not working properly. On 20.7.2003, appellants sent a letter informing the respondent that their Air-conditioning system was working perfectly and that the complaints made by the respondent were related to remote operational issues or voltage problem and that there was nothing wrong with the equipment supplied and installed under the air-conditioning scheme by the appellants. The appellants further informed the respondent that to obtain uninterrupted performance of the air-conditioning system installed at the premises of the respondent, certain precautions were required to be taken. On 29.10.2003, the respondent through its Advocate, got a legal notice served on the appellants demanding that the air-conditioning system installed at the premises of the respondent be rectified at no extra cost and that a sum of Rs.44,29,220/- be paid to the respondent. On 18.11.2003, appellants sent a reply to the legal notice dated 29.10.2003. The appellants refuted all the allegations made by the respondent in their legal notice and reiterated that the air-conditioning system installed by the appellants was working perfectly at the respondent’s premises. In the year 2004, the respondent filed a complaint before the State Commission against the appellants alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. In April, 2004, the respondent filed a suit for mandatory injunction being Suit No.CS(OS) 393/2004 before the Civil Court in Delhi to fulfil its part of the agreement. On 19.4.2008, the respondent withdrew the said suit. The said suit was withdrawn simplicitor without taking leave of the court to agitate the issues arising in the said suit in other proceedings. On 26.11.2008, impugned order was passed by the State Commission whereby the State Commission allowed the complaint of the respondent and directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.10 lakhs to the complainant as compensation and Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. Hence the present appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants stated that the respondent/complainant is not a consumer as the air-conditioning contract was given for the house of Managing Director (MD) of the respondent company as is clear from letter dated 07.6.2003 of the complainant. Even in the legal notice, it is stated that the air-conditioning was to be done for the house of the MD. The maintainability issue was raised before the State Commission on this ground. However, the State Commission has not considered this issue. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants referred to the judgment of this Commission in General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. G.S. Fertilizers (P) Ltd. & Anr., II (2013) CPJ 72 (NC), wherein the following has been observed:-
“9. We have heard learned counsel for both partie
