JAY KAY PURI ENGINEERS Vs. MOHAN BREWERIES AND DISTILLERIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been out of the order dated 11th December, 1992 of the State Commission, Tamil Nadu at Madras.

(2.) THE complainant who is the respondent before this commission filed a complaint under Sections 17 and 18 read with Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the State Commission/ Tamil Nadu. The complainant had established a Guest House for its Directors including the Managing Director and other Executives of the Company at C -796, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. The job of furnishing and erecting centrally air -conditioning system both the heating and cooling at the said premises was entrusted to the Appellants (opposite parties before the state commission) in response to their quotation of Rs. 9,68,000/ - for establishing the central air -conditioning with cooling and heating, auto controls of 15 T Plant with cooling tower, GI sheet, Kirloskar motors and heavy quality pipe. Detailed specifications are given in the quotation. The second opposite party undertook the work and started fixing the system and units between December, 1988 and March, 1989. It is alleged in the complaint that the opposite parties commenced from 14th April, 1989 trial runs of the cooling system of the air -conditioning plant but the system did not function. The cooling system of the air -conditioning plant when put to use did not function properly. The air -conditioning system had developed snags and did not work properly. There was leakage of water through ducting system. The service contractor of the opposite party had undertaken certain repair work but even thereafter the system did not work properly. The plant and the coiled fans fitted in the rooms were repaired. Even then the air -conditioning plant did not start functioning in a proper manner. One of the units did not function and the air conditioning units developed gas leakage and inspite of refilling of gas, the gas leakage continued to persist.

(3.) ON merits it is denied that any quotation was given by the opposite party or any formal order was placed on it. It is, however, admitted that the job of erecting and installing of centrally air -conditioning system both for heating and cooling at the said premises was undertaken by the Appellants in June, 1988 and completed in December, 1988. The central air -conditioning and heating system after a trial run in October, 1988 had successfully been commissioned in December, 1988. It was only in May, 1989 that a report was received of defects which on examination was found that one compressor was burnt, due to mishandling by the complainant's staff but as it was in warranty period, it was replaced by M/s. Kirloskar & Co. It was, therefore, only in May 1990 that a complaint about malfunctioning was received which was duly replied. The contention is that the complainant has falsely woven a story about defects in the air -conditioning system with ulterior motives.