Oral

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal No. 671 of 2013

Carrier Airconditioning & Refrigeration Ltd., A

Company incorporated under the provisions of the

Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office

at Narsinghpur, Kherki Daula Post Gurgaon-

122004 (Haryana) (Through is authorized

Signatory Mr. Sudarsan Gopalan)                       …Appellant.

Versus

1- Neeta Maheshwari w/o Nikunj Maheshwari,

    R/o C-31, “Bhagwati Sadan”, Ekta Nagar,

    Bareilly (Uttar Pradesh)

2- Proprietor, M/s Sudarsan Electronics,

    69/403, Madhyam Marg, Infront of Hind Talkies,

    Civil Lines, Branch 7 & 8, Hind Cinema

    Building, Bareilly (Uttar Pradesh)             .…Respondents.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar, President.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

Ms. Satakshi Shukla, Ld. counsel for the appellant.

Sri R.D. Kranti, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1.

None for the respondent no.2.

Date  7.8.2023

JUDGMENT

Per Sri Sushil Kumar,  Member-   This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 14.2.2013 passed by the Ld. District Commission-I, Bareilly in complaint case no.115 of 2011, Smt. Neeta Maheshwai vs. Carrier Airconditioning & Refrigeration Ltd., & anr., whereby the ld. District Commission by allowing the complaint directed the opposite party/appellant to exchange the defective AC with a new one order to pay Rs.22,000.00. cost/value of the AC.

          As per facts of the complaint, the complainant purchased AC from the opposite party no.2, the sale agent of

(2)

the opposite party no.1 on 21.4.2011 for Rs.22,000.00 as consideration but this AC was unable to work from the date of its installation. The complainant made so-many requests regarding the defective AC. The employee of the opposite party no.2 visited the residence of the complainant on 22.4.2011 and declared the manufacturing defect in the AC. Therefore, the ld. District Consumer Commission by allowing the complaint, directed the opposite parties as above.

          We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned judgment and record available on the file.

          Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no report of expert body regarding manufacturing defect of the AC and the appellant is ready to repair the AC but since the AC was purchased in the year 2011 and the AC is not workable since then, therefore, occasion of repair had gone away. Therefore, this submission regarding repair and maintenance of the AC is not acceptable but since order of repayment or changing has been made by the ld. District Consumer Commission and directed to pay Rs.2,000.00 for the cost of complaint. Therefore, it was inappropriate to award Rs.5,000.00 as compensation in the name of mental agony. This part of the order deserves to be set aside. The appeal deserves to be allowed partially.   

ORDER

          Appeal is allowed partially. The impugned judgment and order dated 14.2.2013 passed by the Ld. District Commission-I, Bareilly in complaint case no.115 of 2011 is amended upto this extent that the opposite parties shall not bound to pay Rs.5,000.00 for mental agony. Rest part of the

(3)

judgment is confirmed.

If any amount is deposited by the appellants at the time of filing of this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, may be remitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission for satisfying the decree as per rules alongwith accrued interest upto date.

The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself. 

          Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.       

            (Justice Ashok Kumar)                (Sushil Kumar)

                      President                                   Member             

Jafri, PA I

Court 1/2