Back
CHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
S.C. Vyas, President and V.K. Patil, Member
ADITI KEJRIWAL AND ANR. - Appellants
Versus
CINNI SALES COMPANY AND ORS. - Respondents
Appeal No. 72 of 2010
Decided on : 24-12-2010
Consumer Protection - Deficiency in Service - Warranty and Liability
Fact of the Case:
The appellant purchased an air-conditioner and a stabilizer from the respondent. After experiencing cooling issues, the appellant filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service and seeking a refund.
Finding of the Court:
The District Forum dismissed the complaint, stating that the appellant did not qualify as a consumer and that the defects were due to improper usage and electric supply. However, the State Commission found that the appellant was indeed a consumer and that the defects were covered under warranty, thus allowing the appeal in part.
Issues: The main issues were the consumer's eligibility, the cause of defects in the air-conditioner, and the applicability of the warranty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant qualified as a consumer for personal use, and the defects were covered under the warranty as they were not due to improper usage or faulty electric supply.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, directing the respondent to repair or replace the compressor/cooling system within the warranty period and to pay a sum for deficiency in service.
ORDER
S.C. Vyas, President (Oral)- This appeal is directed against order 17.12.2009, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short), in complaint case No. 169/08, whereby the complaint regarding deficiency in service, in respect of air-conditioner sold by respondent No. l and seeking compensation for that deficiency in service has been dismissed on the ground that the complainant/appellant does not come in the category of consumer and that the respondents are not responsible for the defects in the air-conditioner.
2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that on 18.8.2007 a Voltas air-conditioner two tons split and crystal care stabilizer of 5 KVA was sold by respondent No. 1 to the complainant/appellant for Rs. 33,500 and installation charges of Rs. 4,000 were also collected and then the air-conditioner was installed at the residence of the complainant. Later on in the next summer season, it was found that the air-conditioner was not cooling the room properly and then complaint was made to respondent No. l, but no heed was paid, then consumer complaint was filed before District Forum, alleging deficiency in service and claiming refund of price of the air-conditioner.
3. In reply the respondents averred that defects have been generated because of improper use of air-conditioner and because of improper electric supply to the air-conditioner. It has also been averred that the complaint was not maintainable before District Forum.
4. Learned District Forum after having considered rival contentions, dismissed the complaint, as aforesaid.
5. We have heard arguments advanced by both parties and perused the record of the District Forum.
6. So far as the question of maintainability of complaint itself is concerned, it has been stated by the complainant that the air-conditioner was purchased for personal use of the complainant and was installed at her residence. The bill of purchase might be in the name of Chakra Associates, but article was purchased for personal use and not for resale or for any other use for commercial purpose. In view of this fact, stated in the complaint and verified in the affidavit of the complainant, we find that the District Forum was wrong in holding that the air-conditioner was purchased for commercial purpose and so the complaint is not maintainable.
7. In respect of second contention, it appears that warranty card was provided by respondent No. l at the time of sale of the questioned air-conditioner. There was a warranty of repairs or replacement free of charge of any part or parts of the air-conditioner for a. period of 12 months from the date of purchase and it was assured that when it is identified that any defect is there due to faulty material or workmanship and not due to improper usage or faulty electric supply/connection, then there will be free repair or replacement. So far as cooling system is concerned, the warranty on compressor was of 5 years for repair or replacement of the compressor. Technical specifications of vertis premium split A.C. has also been filed along with warranty slip. The air-conditioner in question is of two tons and there was nominal cooling capacity of 24000(7030W). It has also been mentioned that it needs power supply of 230/50 V/Hz and that is of one phase. In this literature it has not been mentioned anywhere that there was requirement of three phase connection. On the contrary one phase has been specifically mentioned in the technical specifications and therefore the requirement was only of one phase connection. The air-conditioner was installed by qualified mechanic of the respondent No. l/company and had there been requirement of three phase connection, then the said mechanic would have refused to instal the air-conditioner on single phase connection. When proper supply of electricity was found then only the air-conditioner was installed. So far as the fluctuation of voltage is concerned, voltage stabilizer was als
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
