DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist – manufacturer and the respondent no. 1 in person. Perused the material on record. 2. The dispute relates to supply of an air conditioner with an inherent defect by the OPs to the complainant. 3. The District Forum heard both sides, appraised the evidence and vide its Order dated 18.07.2016 allowed the complaint: 8] Considering the submissions of the parties and after going through the record, it is clear that the complainant purchased one carrier Split Air Condition System Model Novello Plus 1.5 Yon- Three Stars Rating , from OP No.2 , which did not function properly and got serviced on numerous occasions , whereby the compressor as well as the connector of the AC was changed and the gas has also been filled twice. It is further clear that despite numerous repairs, the AC purchased by the complainant failed to give the desired cooling, then the said unit was replaced with new AC of the same make & model by OPs. Unfortunately, the subsequent AC installed in place of earlier one, too did not function well and it also failed to give the cooling effectively and a complaint was duly lodged with the OPs for the same. The Engineers of the OPs attended the complaint and while repairing the AC, they dismantled the pipe lines of the AC , in order to improve its cooling , but despite the said repair , again the AC failed to function properly and another complaint was lodged with the OPs. 9] Being not satisfied with the functioning of the AC , the complainant claimed for the refund of invoice price spent on the AC , to which the OPs paid no heed. The only defence putforth by the OPs is that the AC of 1.5 ton capacity , is not meant to cool a bigger room having covered area of around 270 sq.ft. They claimed that 1.5 Ton AC has the capacity to cool the room of having 150 sq. ft. area. Denying any manufacturing defect in the AC , the OPs have claimed that since the complainant installed the AC in a bigger room against their advice , it failed to give the desired cooling and for such , the fault lies only with the complainant. In our opinion, this defence of the OP No. 1 is not corroborated by any cogent evidence on record , as nothing in the form of guidelines or specification of the company have been placed on record by OP NO.1 wherefrom it can be gathered that as to what capacity of AC is recommended for what size of the room area and that the AC having capacity of 1.5 Ton is sufficient to cool a particular size of the room. It is further observed that the AC installed on the first instance was admittedly repaired on numerous dates and not even on a single Job Card, the Engineers of the OP company have reported that due the bigger size of the room , the AC of 1.5 Ton failed to give the desired cooling. The things which could have been observed at the first instance have either been ignored or not noticed by the Engineers of the OP Company , for the simple reason that a proper AC was installed in the particular size of room. Further the subsequent AC installed too failed to give the effective cooling which reveals that there must be inherent manufacturing defect in that particular model of the AC. No affidavit of any Engineer of the OP has been placed on record to substantiate their defence that the AC in question is not adequate to cool the room of the complainant being bigger in size nor the OPs placed on record the standard technical data of the AC, as demanded by the complainant, which proves the assertions of the complainant as true that Opposite Parties tried to hide the details of the defects in their product. Hence , the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs is proved. 10] In view of the forgoing discussion, we are of the opinion that deficiency in service on the part of the OPs is proved. Therefore, the complaint stands allowed against the OPs and the OPs are jointly & severally directed as under :- [a] To refund an amount of Rs. 39,900/- being the invoice price of AC in question; [b] To pay an amount of Rs. 7000/- as compensation to the complainant; [c] To pay an amount of Rs. 5000/- as litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with by the OPs jointly & severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall be liable to pay the awarded amount, as at sub-para [a] & [b] above, along with interest @ 12 % p.a from the date of filing this complaint till realization, apart from paying the litigation expenses. 11] However, the OPs shall collect the old AC from the premises of the complainant at their own expenses, only after making payment of awarded amount to the complainant. (paras 8, 9, 10 and 11 the District Forum’s Order) 4. The OP No. 1 appealed in the State Commission. The State Commission heard both sides, appraised the evidence and through its Order dated 27.10.2016 dismissed the appeal: 4. Both the parties led evidence. The Forum , on analysis of pleadings of the parties , documents placed on record and arguments raised , partly allowed the complaint allowing refund of amount paid towards purchase of AC unit , compensation for physical/ mental harassment and litigation expenses. - - - - - - 6. In view of the above, no case is made out by the appellant, to make interference, in the order under challenge. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal , being devoid of merit , must fail , and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage , with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld. (paras 4, 6 and 7 of the State Commission’s Order) 5. The OP No. 1 has filed the instant revision petition under section 21 (b) of the Act 1986 against the said Order dated 27.10.2016 of the State Commission. 6. We find the Order of the State Commission to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. The State Commission concurred with the findings of the District Forum. Within the meaning and scope of section 21(b), we find no grave error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require re-appreciation of the evidence in revision. We note in particular the extracts of the respective appraisals / observations made by the two fora quoted, verbatim, in paras 3 and 4 above. We find the award made by the District Forum (quoted in para 3 above), and as affirmed by the State Commission, to be just and appropriate. And, on the face of it, we find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice. 7. The revision petition, being misconceived and devoid of merit, is dismissed. 8. Needless to add that the District Forum shall undertake execution as per the law. 9. A copy each of this Order be sent to the District Forum and to the complainant by the Registry within ten days. | 
