BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA YSR DISTRICT
PRESENT SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., PRESIDENT FAC
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER.
Thursday, 7th August 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 56/ 2013
Dr. U. Syam Sundar Rao, M.D.,
S/o Sankar Rao, aged 36 years, D.No. 3/153,
Christian Lane, Image Diagnostic Center,
Kadapa city, YSR District. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its
Managing Director, Suntech Centre, 1st floor,
Subhash Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai.
2. Mr. Ron V Thomas, General Manager-South,
Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd., 3rd floor,
New No. 20, Old No. 3, Avenue Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
3. Roshan Marketing Agency, Rep. by its Proprietor,
Consultant and Dealer to Corestreath Health India Pvt. Ltd.,
39-7-E-2, K.V.R. Garden, Kurnool -1 (A.P). ….. Respondents.
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 01-08-2014 in the presence of Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for complainant and Sri M. Nagi Reddy, Advocate for R1 and R2 and R3 called absent and set exparte on 29-4-2014 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, President FAC),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of C.P. Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- it is submitted that the complainant is a doctor by profession for eking out his livelihood, he intended to start a Diagnostic Centre at Kadapa city. Accordingly, he intended to purchase machinery CRVITA and DV 5850 dry laser imager being manufactured by R1 and R2 and marketed by R3. The R3 is a marketing dealer of R1 and R2 for Rayalaseema zone in A.P. After knowing the intention of the complainant, the R3 contacted with him at Kadapa city, who is running diagnostic center at Kadapa and convinced him to purchase the products of R1 and R2. Having attracted by the demos given by R3 at Kadapa, the complainant decided to purchase machinery of R1 and R2 and on 11-10-2012 placed an order through the R3. After due negotiations, the R1 and R2 informed the complainant about the prices consisting of products worth of Rs. 9,50,000/-. At the time of placing order the respondents have obtained two filled cheqaues Rs. 2,37,500/- and for Rs. 7,12,500/- respectively drawn on Axis Bank Kadapa branch, Kadapa and promised to the complainant that they would encash the same after sending the machinery to him. The said cheques were stands in the name of complainant’s wife. The respondents further informed to the complainant that they would inform the date of delivery of machinery in advance enabling to make arrangements for its installation at Kadapa.
3. While so, the complainant observed quality of image products of respondents is very low, as he visited other diagnostic Centre that purchases same products of Respondents Company. In fact, he found gross disparity in quality of image when compared to the images demonstrated by R3. Immediately, the complainant contacted the respondents and made enquiries about the quality of image but they utterly failed to give satisfactory answers to him. The complainant suspected their bonafides. He came to know that one of the cheque for Rs. 2,37,500/- has been encashed by respondents as against to their promise and on that he blocked for non-payment of another cheque for Rs. 7,12,500/- bearing cheque No. 1552 drawn on Axis bank, Kadapa branch, which is stands in the name of his wife who is a primary joint account holder along with the complainant. There on 27-11-2012 he cancelled the order placed by him and communicated the information to the respondents on the same day.
4. While so, on 07-12-2012 to his utter surprise he received intimation from one Blue dart courier office, Kadapa that machinery of respondent’s company reached Kadapa city for delivery. The complainant does not know the reasons as and how the machinery was transported by respondents, when he already cancelled the order. The respondents did not stand either of their versions. At first instance, they promised to encash the cheques after delivery of machinery as well they will inform the date of delivery prior to its dispatch. The fact of cancellation of order was intimated to the courtier company by the complainant and he also explained the reasons for not receiving the products sent by the respondents. Number of times, the complainant requested the respondents to return the amount Rs. 2,37,500/- received by them by encashing the cheque issued by him. But the R1 & R3 putting blame on each other and evading payment to the complainant. As the complainant already cancelled the order and as he did not receive any products from the respondent’s, they are not supposed to withhold his amount and their personal cannot black mail for initiation of criminal proceedings under negotiable instruments act against the complainant. Acts of personnel of the respondents caused mental agony to the complainant. As there was no consideration, the respondents are bound to return Rs. 2,37,500/- together with interest from the date of its encashment till the date of its realization to the complainant and also to return other cheque leaf.
5. As there was no reply from the respondents side, the complainant got issued a legal notice dt. 20-4-2013 calling upon the respondents to take notice and to return Rs. 2,37,500/- together with 24% from the date of encashment of cheque till the date of realization and to return cheque issued by my client for Rs. 7,12,500/- bearing cheque No. 1552 drawn on Axis Bank, Kadapa branch, Kadapa and also pay Rs. 5,00,000/- damages for causing mental tension within 7 days of receipt of notice. The R3 refused to take notice. Having received the legal notice, the R1 got issued a reply letter dt. 24-5-2013 through the R2 with all false and untenable allegations. They contended that there is a condition of deduction of 10% of cost of product in case the order placed was cancelled after its due dispatch. To the surprise of the complainant, the R2 got issued another letter without mentioning the date and enclosed a cheque bearing No. 120390,dt. 17-6-2013 drawn on city bank for Rs. 1,18,750/-.
6. It is submitted that the complainant has ample evidence on hand to say that he communicated cancelling of his order to the respondents well before dispatch of machinery by them. To have unlawful gain and ulterior motives the respondents are putting blame on the complainant. They are not supposed to deduct 10% of cost of the machinery which is illegal and not permissible according to law. Through second legal notice dt. 24-6-2013 the complainant called upon the respondents to send a copy of terms and conditions with the “cancellation” clause allegedly signed by him. At the same time the complainant returned thecheque issued by the respondents for Rs. 1,18,750/- through the said second legal notice dt. 24-6-2013. The same was received by R2. The R3 even failed to receive the second notice and the postal cover is returned unserved as the addressee refused to receive the same. After receipt of second legal notice, the respondents did not prefer even to give any reply and also failed to pay total amount of the complainant.
7. It is submitted that the respondents have been harassing the complainant by not returning his amount of Rs. 2,37,500/-. All these days, the complainant was put to mental agony and physical strain. He could not concentrate on his profession. The action of the respondents clearly demonstrates that by hooks or crooks they want to extract amount from the complainant. Having received the information of cancellation of his order, the respondents tried to deliver the machinery to the complainant to have unlawful gain. When the complainant questioned about the veracity of holding 10% of cost of machinery, the respondents escaped from giving any reply. All the acts of respondents clearly show the deficiency of service on their part. The respondents are adopting unfair trade practice. They are liable to make good to the loss sustained by the complainant for their negligent acts and are liable to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- to the complainant towards damages for causing mental tension apart from return of encashed amount together with interest and return of original cheque leaf. Hence, this complaint.
8. The cause of action arose on 11-10-2012 when the complainant placed an order for machinery with respondents through R3 at Kadapa and where the complainant got issued two cheques in favour of the respondents at Kadapa and when the complainant found disparity in quality of image of machinery of the respondents at Kadapa and when the complainant was informed about the receiving of machinery from the respondent through one blue dart courier at Kadapa and on all dates when the complainant demanded for return of his amount to the respondents and they failed to return the same to the complainant within the jurisdiction of Hon’ble forum. A fee of Rs. 400/- is paid by way of challan.
9. It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble forum may be pleased to allow the complaint and pass orders in favour of the complainant, directing the respondents 1 to 3 (a) to return Rs. 2,37,500/- together with 24% interest from the date of encashment of cheque till the date of realization, (b) to return chequebearing No. 1552 for Rs. 7,12,500/- drawn on Axis Bank, Kadapa branch, Kadapa (c) to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- damages for causing mental agony and physical strain to the complainant and (4) to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of complaint and other relieves as the Hon’ble forum deem fit and proper.
10. Counter filed by R1. That the R1 i.e. Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd., (herein after referred to as “Carestream”) is a multinational company providing health care services and also deals in supplying diagnostic and other medical equipment’s along with medical and dental imaging systems and information technology solution; molecular imaging systems; and non-destructive testing products to a broad base of customers around the world having its offices at the addresses mentioned at the cause title above. The complainant is a doctor by profession, who runs a diagnostic center in the city of Kadapa for gain.
11. At the outset the R1 denies all the averments, statements, allegations, submissions and contentions made in the present complaint. Nothing contained in the complaint should be deemed to be admitted by R1 by reason of non-traverse or otherwise, save and except expressly admitted hereinafter.
12. The R1 states that the complaint is misconceived, frivolous and devoid of any merit; and the complainant is not entitled to nay relief’s as sough n the complaint. The allegations made in this complaint are malicious and directed towards meeting the unfair claims made by the complainant. It seems that the complainant is trying to mislead the Hon’ble Forum by raising all sorts of contention in the present complaint and has willfully not appraised this Hon’ble with the correct facts. The facts enumerated herein below will show that the complainant has actively concealed significant fats and is trying to pay ford on this Hon’ble forum.
13. The submissions made hereinafter are without prejudice to the fact that Carestream challenges the locus of the complainant to file the complaint and further states that the complaint is not maintainable before this Hon’ble forum for want of any cause of action in favour of the present complainant and against the R1 & 2. It is submitted by Carestream that the complainant does not fall under the definition of a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and hence, the present complaint has been filed without any basis and the same ought to be dismissed at the very out set with costs. It is further submitted that the compliant has neither purchased nor availed of any service, from carestream for personal consumption, as is mandated under the Act, and thus cannot claim to be a consumer. It is therefore, evident that the complainant has failed to fulfill this basic ingredient of law and is therefore, precluded from claiming any relief under the act.
14. It is settled position of law that a person who buys any goods or avails any service for commercial purpose would not be considered as ‘consumer’ under the act and no remedy would lie under the act. It is submitted that the machine was sold to the complainant for commercial enterprise engaged in provision of diagnostic services to its patients on commercial considerations. The goods services availed were for commercial purpose and would be outside the purview of the act. The definition of ‘consumer’ under section 2 (d) (i) (ii) is not applicable to the complainant. It is pertinent in this regard to refer to the Supreme Court judgment of Laxmi Engineering works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583.
15. Before dwelling upon the above preliminary objection to the complainant, it would be pertinent to take note of the following facts relevant and necessary for the proper adjudication of the complaint.
(i) That in September 2012 the complainant had placed an order for purchase of Carestream VITA CR system & Dry view laser imager 5850 with carestream, after being satisfied with the terms and conditions mentioned in the offer letter dt. 11-9-2012. Carestream craves leave of the Hon’ble forum to refer to and rely upon the said offer letter dt. 11-9-2012 as and when required.
(ii) It is noteworthy that the aforesaid offer letter provides the terms and conditions for sale of the machine. One of the terms in the said offer letter provides for the consequences to follow on cancellation of the offer and categorically states that: “The customer may cancel the order by giving written notice to Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd., in such an event the customer shall be liable to pay to carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd., a minimum of 10% of the contract value towards cancellation charges. If the customer cancels the order after the equipment has been dispatched by caestream health India Pvt. Ltd., the customer in addition to the cancellation charges, shall be liable to pay Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd., all other costs such as freight charges, demurrage, re-diversion costs, sales tax on re-sale of the equipment which has been specifically imported by Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd to fulfill the customers condition, interest charges and any other costs incurred by Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd. Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd shall, without prejudice to any other rights, have the right to adjust the advance paid by the customer towards this contract or any other amounts belonging to the customer lying with Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd for any reason whatsoever”.
(iii) The complainant accepted the aforesaid offer letter and confirmed the said same vide a letter of the same date i.e. 11-9-2012 and furnished carestreamwith a cheque of Rs. 2,37,500/- dt. 12-10-2012 towards advance. Carestream craves leave of the Hon’ble forum to refer to and rely upon the said letter dt. 11-9-2012 sent by the complainant to carestream as and when required.
(iv) Contrary to the above, on 20-4-2013 the complainant through his advocate sent a notice to carestrean and O.P. 2 making allegations and calling upon them to refund the amount of Rs. 2,37,500/- paid by the complainant towards advance with 24% interest from the date on the which it was encashed. It was alleged in the said notice that the complainant had cancelled the order on 27-11-2012 and communicated the same to both the addressees on the same day. However, contrary to his instructions carestream encashed the said cheque issued towards advance. It is to be noted that the ground mentioned by the complainant for cancellation of the order is vague and imaginary. It states that the complainant observed quality of image products ofcarestream is very low, when he visited other diagnostic center that had purchased the same products of carestream. Thus it is clear that the judgment formed by the complainant as regards quality of the machine purchased by him from carestream was merely on the observations made regarding someone else’s machine and therefore, mere speculative. Carestream craves leave of the Hon’ble form to refer to and rely upon the said letter dt. 20-4-2013 as and when required.
(v) The aforesaid letter dt. 20-4-2013 was duly replied by Carestream by its letter dt. 24-5-2013 refuting all the false and baseless allegations. It was stated that no such communication of cancellation as alleged by the complainant was ever received by Carestream and therefore, the collection ofcheque by carestream has been done in good faith and in accordance with the order placed by the complainant. It is pertinent to note that no proof has been furnished by the complainant to show that such communication was ever made by him with R1 as regards the allegation of carestream’s officers failure to give “satisfactory answers” it was stated that Carestream could not provide answers to non existence facts or imaginary questions. Further, as per the terms of contract the machine was delivered by the O.P. 1 through its carriers “Blue Dart” to the complainant called upon the complainant to confirm the same. The complainant refused to take the delivery alleging that the offer was cancelled by him on 27-11-2012. The complainant then called the O.P. 3 and informed that he has cancelled the order and therefore he will not accept delivery of the machine. In view of the non-acceptance of machine by the complainant, the R1 instructed its carriers “Blue Dart” to shift the machine to O.p.1’s where house. However, assuming and not admitting that the complainant had cancelled the offer, till the date of delivery of the machine, Carestream still has every right to deduct 10% of the contract value towards cancellation charges as mentioned in the cancellation clause cited hereinabove. In fact Carestream is also entitled to claim all other costs incurred after dispatch of the machine to customer. Carestream craves leave of the Hon’ble forum to refer to and rely upon the said letterdt. 24-5-2013 as and when required.
(vi) The terms of cancellation cited herein above makes in abundantly clear that Carestream is well within its right to adjust the advance paid by the complainant towards the cancellation charges. Thus allegation of the complainant that Carestream has not returned the advance paid does not hold the field. It is noteworthy that on 24-5-2013, Carestream with all fairness had sent a cheque bearing No. 120390, dt. 17-6-2013 for Rs. 1,18,750/- to the complainant after deducting the 10% charges towards cancellation. However, the complainant refused to accept the same and returned the same toCarestream under a cover letter dt. 24-6-2013. Carestream craves leave of the Hon’ble forum to refer to and rely upon the aforesaid letters dt. 24-5-2013 and 24-6-2013 respectively as and when required.
(vii) The aforesaid facts clearly shows that the complainant on some imaginary and flimsy grounds seek to cancel the contract and that too when the machine had already been dispatched by Carestream to the complainant, which is an afterthought.
The R1 shall reply to the complaint on merits.
16. That contents of paragraph -1 are denied to the extent of which the same are contrary to what is mentioned herein above. It is pertinent to mention that on one hand the complainant has alleged that he intended to start a diagnostic center at Kadapa whereas in the same paragraph the complainant has alleged contrary to the above and mentioned that he is running the diagnostic center. It is denied that the R1 and R2 have obtained the cheques for Rs. 2,37,500/- and Rs. 7,12,500/- respectively and promised to the complainant that the same would be encashed only after sending the machine. It is further denied that the R1 ever informed that they would inform the date of delivery of machinery in advance enabling to make arrangements for it installation at Kadapa.
17. With reference to paragraph 2 it is submitted that the grounds mentioned by the complainant for cancellation of the contract are imaginary and based on non – existent facts. The allegations made by the complainant in paragraph No. 2 are nothing but repetition of what has already been alleged by him in his letterdt. 20-4-2013. The complainant had never communicated the cancellation of purchase order, therefore the act of carestream encashing the cheque for Rs. 2,37,500/- cannot be said to be illegal. It is denied that the complainant had cancelled the order placed by him on 27-11-2012 or anytime thereafter till the date of delivery of the machine to him.
18. With reference to paragraph 3 it is submitted that the same are baseless allegations and made as an afterthought. At the cost of repetition it is submitted that there was no communication of cancellation of offer from the complainant to Carestream and carestream put the complainant to strict proof thereof. The act of the complainant refusing to accept the delivery of the machine was arbitrary unjustified and without any lawful reasons. Therefore, question of the complainant claiming that as the machine had not been received by him from the respondents does not arise. As the delivery of the machine was refused by the complainant the cancellation clause came into play and the complainant was liable to pay 10% of the contractual amount as cancellation charges. Carestream has acted and is acting in accordance with the contractual obligations between the parties and thereby ready to refund the advance amount after deduction of the 10% amount towards cancellation charges. In fact carestream vide its letter dt. 24-5-2013 had sought to return the balance amount of Rs. 1,18,750/- to the complainant vide cheque bearing No. 120390, dt. 17-6-2013 which the complainant refused to accept vide its letter dt. 24-6-2013 it is therefore false to state thatcarestream has wrongfully withheld advance received. The complainant has concocted the complaint by making false allegations against the R1 and R2 that they blackmailed the complainant for initiation of criminal proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 and thereby caused mental agony to the complainant. In view of the aforesaid it is denied that the respondents are bound to return Rs. 2,37,500/- together with interest from the date of its encashment till the date of its realization to the complainant and to return the cheque leaf.
19. With reference to paragraph 4 it is submitted that the contents of the paragraph other than those3 which are matters of record are wrong and denied. It is denied that the letter sent by Carestream to the complainant on 24-3-2013 in response to his legal notice contains false and untenable allegations.
20. With reference to paragraph 5 it is submitted that Carestream deny that the complainant has any evidence on hand to show that he had communicated cancellation of his order to the respondents well before dispatch of the machine and put the complainant strict proof thereof. It is denied that to have unlawful gain and with ulterior motives the respondents are putting blame on the complainant. In fact the complainant witho9ut using the machine questioned the dealers ofCarestream on some imaginary facts and alleged that no satisfactory answers were given therefore cancelled the order. It is further denied that carestream is not entitled to deduct 10% of costs of the machine as the same is illegal and not permissible according to law. Remaining contents of paragraph 5 are also denied.
21. With reference to paragraph 6 all the allegations made in this paragraph are denied in toto, unless otherwise admitted herein above. It is denied that the respondents have been harassing the complainant by not returning the amount of Rs. 2,37,500/- and have also caused mental agony and physical strain to the complainant. It is denied that the complainant could not concentrate on his profession. It is denied that the respondents have at any point of time adopted the unfair trade practice. It is further denied by Carestream that the respondents are liable to make good the loss allegedly sustained by the complainant for their negligent acts and are liable to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- to the complainant towards damages for causing mental tension apart from return of encashed amount together with interest. On the contrary, the complainant by issuing legal notices is trying to threaten carestream of legal actions it is submitted that the complainant does not disclose a cause of action against carestream and has been filed only as a means to coerce carestream to submit to its unfair demands. Without prejudice, it is submitted that the best service has been provided to the complainant who in turn without using the machine on some imaginary grounds refused to accept the delivery of the machine.
22. With reference to paragraph 7 the contents unless otherwise contrary to matters of record are wrong and denied. It is denied that the respondents 1 & 2 have failed to return the amounts paid towards advance. It is further denied on view of the averments made herein above that the complainant does not fall within the meaning of “consumer” and therefore, this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to try, entertain and dispose of the complaint. It is denied that the complainant is entitled to any of the relief it has claimed as the complaint itself is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Forum for reasons more particularly stated herein above. Therefore, the complaint should be rejected in light of the facts, circumstances and the position of law as pointed out in the submissions made above.
23 The R2 & R2 called absent and set exparte on 29-4-2014.
24. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
i. Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by the complainant?
ii. Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents?
iii. To what relief?
25. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A10 were marked and on behalf of the respondent No.1 Ex. B1 to B5.
26. Point Nos. 1 & 2. It is true under Ex. A1 that the complainant had given order for the machinery, a product of Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd. At the time of placing the order the respondents have obtained two filled cheques of Rs. 2,37,500/- and Rs. 7,12,500/- respectively drawn on Axis Bank Kadapa branch from the complainant and at the same the respondents promised that they will encash the cheque after sending machinery to the complainant. There are no rules and regulations in Ex. A1 and Ex. B1. As per Ex. B3 it is very clear that the Carestream CR VITA with DV 5850 dry laser imager being manufactured by R1, which the complainant ordered to the respondents is for his own use only and not for resale. As per Ex. B4 order acceptance is dependent on submission of requested documents and fulfillment of other terms and conditions mentioned in the quotation. The advance does not guarantee for acceptance. As the complainant was not satisfied with the performance of machinery at other diagnostic center, the complainant blocked the cheque bearing No. 1552for Rs. 7,12,500/- drawn on Axis Bank, Kadapa branch which stands in the name of his wife, who is the joint account holder along with the complainant. On 27-4-2012 the complainant cancelled the order placed by him and communicated the information to the respondents on the same day. The respondents promised to the complainant that they will encash the cheques after delivery of the machine only. On 7-12-2012 the complainant had information from Blue Dart courier office stating that the machinery which he had ordered to the respondents company reached Kadapa city for delivery. The complainant told the cancellation of machine to the courier service and the complainant came to know that the cheque for Rs. 2,37,500/- was encashed by the respondents. As per words of the respondents they will encash the cheque only after installation of the machinery. But they did not do so. The complainant issued legal notice dt. 24-4-2013 under Ex. A3 & A4. The R3 did not received the notice and endorsed on cover refused under Ex. A5. Ex. A6 is reply to the legal notice i.e. Ex., A3. Ex. A7 is undated letters issued by R2 along with photostarte copy cheque bearing No. 120390 for Rs. 1,18,750/-. Again the complainant issued a legal notice dt. 24-6-2013 under Ex. A8 that return of original cheques. Ex. A6 unserved cover of R3. Ex. A2 clearly shows that payment transaction was topped in cheque bearing No. 1552 for Rs. 7,12,500/- it clearly proves cancellation order by the complainant. As per counter of R1, he says that the complainant is not a consumer under the act. But the complainant clearly mentioned in the complaint that he had placed an order for machinery for carrying out his livelihood. As per counter of R1 the customer may cancel the order by giving written notice to Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd., in such an event the customer shall be liable to pay to carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd., a minimum of 10% of the contract value towards cancellation charges. These rules are framed by caestream health India Pvt. Ltd., and it is private limited company. The private companies will have their own rules and regulations. But they should be legal and should not illegal. They are not statutory binding on the others.
27. The complainant is a qualified doctor with Post Graduate Degree M.D. in Radiology, who will not enter into illegal contract and who will not act on illegal methods to get unlawful gains. Being well repudiated person in the city he will not go for any illegal acts which will gain unlawfully. There is deficiency of service and gross negligence on the part of the respondents 1 to 3. The complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him.
28. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the respondents 1, 2 & 3 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 2,37,500/- (Rupees Two lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand and five hundred only) paid by the complainant, return the cheque bearing No. 1552 for Rs. 7,12,500/- (Rupees Seven lakhs Twelve Thousands and Five Hundred only), Pay Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) for mental agony and pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards cost of the complaint, within 45 days of date of receipt of the orders.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 7th August 2014
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c of order conformation letter dt. 14-11-2012 issued by the
respondents in favour of complaint.
Ex. A2 P/c of letter issued by Axis Bank, Kadapa branch, Kadapa indicating
stop payment instrujctions for cheque bearing No. 1552 for
Rs. 7,12,500/-
Ex. A3 Legal notice dt. 20-4-2013 issued by the complainant to the
respodnents.
Ex. A4 Postal receipts and acknowledgement card.
Ex. A5 Postal un-served cover addressed to R3 with an endorsement refused.
Ex. A6 Reply letter dt. 24-5-2013 issued by R2.
Ex. A7 Original undated letter issued by R2 along with P/c of cheqaue bearing
No. 120390 Rs. 1,18,750/-.
Ex. A8 Reply legal notice dt. 24-6-2013 issued by the complainant to the
respondents by returning the original cheque.
Ex. A9 Postal receipt and acknowledgement card.
Ex. A10 Postal un-served cover addressed to the R3 with an endorsement
“refused”.
Exhibits marked for Respondent No.1: -
Ex. B1 P/c of purchase order dt. 11-9-2012.
Ex. B2 P/c of offer letter dt. 11-10-2012.
Ex. B3 P/c of letter to whomsoever it may concern dt. 11-10-2012.
Ex. B4 P/c of accept letter dt. 11-10-2012.
Ex. B5 P/c of order for supply of Carestream CR VITA with DV 5850.
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
Copy to :-
1. Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for complainant.
2. Sri M. Nagi Reddy, Advocate for R1.
3. Mr. Ron V Thomas, General Manager-South, Carestream
Health India Pvt. Ltd., 3rd floor, New No. 20, Old No. 3,
Avenue Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
4. Roshan Marketing Agency, Rep. by its Proprietor,
Consultant and Dealer to Corestreath Health India
Pvt. Ltd., 39-7-E-2, K.V.R. Garden, Kurnool -1 (A.P)
B.V.P.
