DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,

 KOLKATA-700 0144

      C.C. CASE NO. __32_ _ OF ___2017

DATE OF FILING : 16.3.2017         DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 14.12.2018

Present                      :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                        Member(s)    :    Subrata Sarker  & Jhunu Prasad

COMPLAINANT        :    Krishnapada Halder, , Prop. Of Rainbow Clinic & Diagnostic of B-13/23 (CA), Kalyani, P.O & P.S Kalyani, District- Nadia, Pin- 741235.

• VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                         :  1. Elesonic Medical System, Saheban Bagicha, Kalitala, Bakhrahat, P.S Bishnupur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743377.

                                           2. Kaushik Ganguly

                                           3. Smt. Anjana Ganguly, both of Ebony Home Cottage, A-1, Rasa Punja, P.S Thakurpukur, Kolkata – 104.

                                                            J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

Sri Ananta Kumar  Kapri, President

          Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, the complainant has filed the instant case under section 12, C.P Act, 1986.

          The facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows:

           The complainant is a doctor by profession . He decided to set up a unit of X-ray machine for his own practice for the purpose of earning his livelihood. The O.Ps agreed to supply and install X-Ray machine at Kalyani with all its components for Rs.2,50,000/- . Complainant made an initial payment of Rs.50,000/- by cheque dated 15.4.2015 as advance payment to the O.Ps. Thereafter, also, he paid a considerable amount towards the consideration price of the said machine from time to time. But the O.Ps did not install the machine except delivery of some components of the machines to the complainant. Total payment made by the complainant to the O.Ps was Rs.2,20,000/-. Repeated requests for delivery and installation of the machine has fell flat upon the O.Ps and, therefore, the complainant has filed the instant case, praying for refund of the money paid by him to the O.Ps and also for compensation. Hence, this case.

          The O.P-2 filed written version and thereafter he has not turned up to contest the case and, therefore, the case is heard exparte against him. The version of the O.P-2 as is made out in the written statement submitted by him ,is that the complainant did not make the payment as agreed upon and ,therefore, the X-ray machine has not been delivered and installed.

            Summons were served upon the O.P nos. 1, and 3 also, vide postal track report kept in the record. But they did not turn up to contest herein and as such, the case is also heard exparte against them.

           Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.

POINTS  FOR DETERMINATION

1. Are the O.Ps liable for  deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
2. Is the complainant  entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?

EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES

        Evidence on affidavit is filed by the complainant and the same is kept in the record after consideration. No evidence whatsoever is led by the O.P-2 .

DECISION WITH REASONS

      Point no.1 & 2 :

          It is not denied by the O.Ps that they agreed to sell and install X-ray machine for the complainant for a total consideration price of Rs.2,50,000/- . It is not also denied by them that Rs.2,20,000/- has been paid by the complainant at different times. Money receipts are filed by the complainant herein and the money receipts go to establish that Rs.2,20,000/- has been paid by the complainant to the O.Ps. It also transpires from the evidence of the complainant that X-ray machine has not been delivered and installed at the agreed site by the O.Ps, except delivery of a few components of the said machine. The machine was to be delivered and installed by 12.5.2015. But the machine has not yet been delivered and installed in terms of the agreement by the O.Ps. The O.Ps are, therefore, found to be a defaulter in terms of the agreement and this default on the part of the O.Ps is considered as their deficiency in service. The complainant is, therefore, entitled to get the refund of the money paid by him to the O.Ps.

          The complainant has prayed for a sum of Rs.5 lacs as refund from the O.Ps. But, it is found that he has paid a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- only to the O.Ps. It is the version of the complainant that he has incurred huge cost for taking a room on rent, decoration, electricity ,salary of an employee etc. and etc. But no document has been submitted by the complainant to prove that he has incurred all these expenses. That apart, question of taking a room on rent or recruitment of a technician does not arise at all ,where the machine itself has not been delivered and installed.

          In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.2,20,000/- only from the O.P.   

           In the result, the case succeeds in part.

            Hence,

ORDERED

             That the complaint case be and the same is  decreed in part on exparte against the O.P nos. 1,2 and 3 with cost of Rs.5,000/- .

              All the O.Ps, who shall remain jointly and severally liable to the complainant, are directed to refund Rs.2,20,000/- to the complainant with compensation by way of interest @8% p.a from the date of payment to the O.P till the date of full realization thereof.

         Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.   

                                                                                                                                                President

I / We agree

                            Member                                        Member

            Dictated and corrected by me

                                    President