PER  MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          The revision is directed against the concurrent findings of two fora below.  The complainant had purchased Split air conditioner on 20^th March 2009 and the same was installed on 21.03.2009.  According to the complainant the air conditioner was put into use in the month of May 2009 but it did not provide optimum cooling and finally stopped cooling completely.  A complaint was lodged with the Customer Care Department of Respondents 1 & 2 (O.P. 1 & 2) on 30^th June 2009.  In the 1^st week of July 2009, the compressor was replaced.  According to the complainant the air conditioner was used upto August 2009.  In May 2010 when he again started using the air conditioner, it started giving problems in cooling.  On 20^th May 2010, its thimble was replaced by the technicians of O.P. 1 & 2.  However, at that time it was found that there was leakage in the condenser because of which it could not retain gas.  The opposite party 1 & 2 asked the complainant to pay 50% of the value of condenser since the warranty for the condenser was for one year, which had expired.  The complainant did not agree to pay 50% value of the condenser and filed a consumer complaint.

          The District Forum dismissed the complaint.  The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed.  Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the thimble was replaced in May 2009 free of charge and on account of this conduct on the part of opposite party 1 & 2, the period of warranty got extended and as such O.P. 1 & 2 were required to replace the condenser free of cost.  In support of his submission reliance has been placed on the judgement of Apex Court in “Indochem Electronic & Anr. Versus Additional Collector of Customs A.P. (2006) 3 SCC 721” and he has drawn our attention to paragraph 23-26 of the said judgement.

          We have gone through the record and judgement of the Apex Court. In our opinion the ruling of the Apex Court cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the case under consideration.  The findings therein were given on the fact situation in the said case wherein EPABX Telephonic System was installed in the month of March 1990.  The State Commission had held in the said case that the system was not functioning from the beginning and complaints were made continuously and although the technician was deputed and some repairs were carried out, still it could not be rectified satisfactorily.  When the warranty period was about come to an end, the respondent therein had categorically stated that the system had not been functioning for the past six months and requested the appellant to extend the warranty period for another 3 to 6 months.  In the said case even after the warranty was over the service provider had rendered services on various occasions namely 14-5-1991, 14-7-1991, 19-8-1991 and 18-9-1991 without any service charges.  It is in this set of facts that the Apex Court held that from the conduct of the appellant itself, it may be inferred that it voluntarily undertook to meet the requirements of the respondent relating to malfunctioning etc. of the system despite expiry of period of warranty and as such the period of warranty stood extended.  In the light of surrounding circumstances. and it was held that the representation of the appellant should have been treated as warranty for an extended period.

          In the case before us the compressor was admittedly replaced during the warranty period.  The thimble was replaced free of charge on 20^th May 2010 as a goodwill gesture by the Respondent 1 & 2, but at the same time it was found that the condenser  was not working for which the opposite party 1 & 2 asked the petitioner to pay 50% value thereof since the warranty period had expired in March 2010. 

In view of this, we do not find that any case has been made out for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as we do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the orders of fora below.  The revision is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.