Haryana

StateCommission

RP/29/2016

PAWAN KUMAR GARG - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.R.TRADERS - Opp.Party(s)

VIKRAM PAL SINGH

29 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Revision Petition No:    29 of 2016

Date of Institution    :    16.03.2016

Date of Decision      :    29.04.2016

 

Pawan Kumar Garg, Resident of House No.A-7, HSIIDC Apartments, Sector-14, Panchkula.

                                      Petitioner/Complainant

Versus

 

1.      M/s S.R. Traders, Booth No.191, Sector-20, Panchkula.

2.      M/s Lloyd Electrical and Engineering Limited, Plot No.2, Industrial Area, Kalkaji, New Delhi.

Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Vikram Pal Singh, Advocate for petitioner.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Pawan Kumar Garg–Complainant has preferred the present revision petition against the order dated December 8^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘the District Forum’) vide which the execution application filed by the petitioner/complainant was dismissed as satisfied.

2.      The petitioner purchased Air Conditioner (AC) of 1.5 Ton 5 Star, Lloyd make, from M/s S.R. Traders, Panchkula/respondent No.1, manufactured by M/s Lloyd Electrical and Engineering Limited-respondent No.2. The AC not functioning properly, the petitioner filed complaint No.73 of 2014, which was decided by the District Forum, Panchkula vide order dated 6^th April, 2015 directing the respondents as under:-

“12.   While, thus, allowing this complaint, we directed Ops to repair the Air Conditioner of the complainant free of cost and to the entire satisfaction of the latter. The liability to comply with this order shall be joint and several of the Ops. The mere fact that OP No.2 has volunteered to repair it free of cost would not exonerate OP No.1 from a charge of deficiency in service and for not having attended to the grievance of the complainant inspite of having been addressed a number of times therefor. In case the repair is not carried out to the satisfaction of the complainant, the Ops shall be jointly and severally liable to:-

1. Refund the purchase price of the AC (at the time of purchase) to the complainant;
2. Pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony and harassment undergone by him; and
3. Pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as the cost of litigation to the complainant.

13.    (In case the order at item ‘a’ is complied with by OP No.2, it shall be entitled to have indemnification thereof from Op No.1).”

3.      In compliance of the order of the District Forum, the respondents rectified the defects. The petitioner filed execution application. The respondents filed reply inter alia stating that the capacity of A.C. was 1.5 ton and as per recommended guidelines, effective area covered by said capacity is 150 Square feet. However, the room where the A.C. is fitted is 35’ x 25’ = 875 square feet. Therefore, it was not giving effective cooling. The relevant portion of the observation in the impugned order is as under:-

“2.     As per the affidavits of both the parties, it is clear that the Ops have repaired the air conditioner as per the direction of this Forum but the act and conduct of the complainant/DH reveals that he intentionally in order to get the second part of the order passed by this Forum i.e. Refund the purchase price of the AC (at the time of purchase) to the complainant implemented by raising unnecessary objections despite the fact that he himself has failed to rebut the objections filed by the Ops. Moreover, his abstinence from the court speaks for itself. Therefore, we have no hitch to conclude that the order under execution has been duly complied with/fully satisfied and the execution stands dispose of.”

4.      The petitioner insisting for refund of the price being the alternative relief given in the complaint, insisted for execution.

5.      The respondents deputed their service engineer and after rectifying the defects run the A.C. for sufficient period and was found O.K. The District Forum, therefore rightly observed as reproduced above.

6.      Since the order stood substantially complied with, there does not appear any illegality in the impugned order. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.

 

Announced 29.04.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL