State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vijay Kapoor, (Senior Citizen) vs Talaulikar Electricals, on 26 May, 2009
THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PANAJI-GOA Present: Smt. Sandra Vaz e CorreiaPresiding Member Smt. Caroline Collasso, Member Appeal No.17/2009 Vijay Kapoor, (Senior Citizen) F-4 NEST Chowgule Gardens, Zuari Nagar, Goa, 403726. Appellant (Original Complainant) v/s Talaulikar Electricals, Magnum Centre, M.G. Road, Panaji, Goa 403001. ..Respondent (Original Opposite Party) Appellant present in person. Dated: 26-05-2009 ORDER
[Per Smt Sandra Vaz e Correia, Presiding Member]
1. The appellant is the complainant in Consumer Complaint no. 27/2008 on the file of the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (District Forum) North Goa. He is aggrieved by the order dated 11-02-2009 whereby his complaint was disposed off with directions to the opposite party to properly install the air conditioner at the complainants premises and awarded cost of Rs.1,000/-. The respondent is the opposite party and dealer of the goods purchased by the complainant.
2. According to the complainant, he purchased a Kenstar microwave oven and a Videocon air conditioner from the opposite party in late-2007. The opposite partys engineer who was to visit the complainants residence to demonstrate the working of the microwave oven never turned up despite personal visits and requests. The complainant was unable to use the micro wave oven for this reason and also because the instruction manual did not tally with the oven supplied. Likewise, the air conditioner was making a loud noise and disturbed the day to day work and sleep. The complainant also claimed to have incurred an expense of Rs.``111111q 250/- per day towards eating out. The complainant issued notice to the opposite party dated 10-12-2007 and called upon him to depute his engineer and make the demonstration, which was not heeded. The complainant again issued a letter dated 19-12-2007; this time the grievance regarding air conditioner was also mentioned.
3. It transpires from the records of the trial forum that prior to admission, the District Forum referred the matter to Lok Adalat held on 25-04-2008. Pursuant to the Lok Adalat the opposite party inspected the microwave oven and replaced with a new piece. The complainant alleges that there was a mix up in the oven supplied to him and that he had been supplied with a wrong model. However the complainant was not satisfied with its performance and felt that the oven was defective at product design level itself. With respect to the air conditioner, according to the complainant, the excessive noise was due to faulty installation and the same was re-done. However, new different sounds began emanating thereafter and as a result the complainant was unable to use the air conditioner.
4. As stated earlier, as regards the microwave oven, the District Forum found that no deficiency in service could be attributed to the opposite party for an alleged defect at the product designed level. As regards the air conditioner, a direction was given to properly install the equipment and insure that unnatural noise does not persist.
5. When the matter was taken up for admission, we heard the appellant Shri Vijay Kapoor in person. Records and proceedings of the trial forum were called for and perused. Admittedly the microwave oven was replaced on/around 27-04-2008. As per the progress report filed by the complainant, he is dissatisfied with the replacement and has alleged that it appears that the oven is defective at the product design level itself. In such circumstances the manufacturer of the microwave oven ought to have been impleaded as a party and the District Forum rightly opined that the opposite party dealer could not be held guilty of deficiency-in-services. As regards the air conditioner, the problem apparently lay with improper installation and necessary directions have been issued by the District Forum in this regard. It is not the appellants case that the product is defective. It is also not his case that installation of the air conditioner was part of the services promised to be rendered by the opposite party; at least the documentary evidence produced by the complainant does not indicate this position. In our view, in these circumstances, replacement of the air conditioner is not called for and the direction to rectify the noise caused by faulty installation is adequate to meet the ends of justice.
6. Finally, the appellants grievance is regarding the amount of costs awarded. In support of his claim for higher compensation on this account, he has relied on the judgment of Honble National Commission in Chandrakant Mahadev Kadam vs. Assistant Engineer, Revision Petition no. 604 of 2003. We perused the cited judgment and found that it does not apply to the facts of the case before us. In the present case, the micro wave oven purchased on 26-11-2008 was replaced on/around 27-04-2008. As regards the air conditioner, it did not find mention in the complainants first letter dated 10-12-2007. In this case also, the noise problem was rectified within about four months, though the complainant continues to be unhappy. It is pertinent to note that the complainant did not bring on record any independent corroboration of his claim of noise-levels in the air-conditioner and/or how it did not comply with approved standards. As regards cost of the litigation, there were twelve odd hearings before the District Forum; in these circumstances, in our opinion, the award of Rs.1,000/- as cost is reasonable.
7. There is no merit in this appeal and the same stands dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no costs.
Pronounced.
[Sandra Vaz e Correia] Member [Caroline Collasso] Member