Haryana

Karnal

CC/355/2022

Gurdyal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ability Artifical Limb Solution - Opp.Party(s)

Angrez Singh Pannu

25 Nov 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.355 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt 23.06.2022

                                                        Date of Decision: 25.11.2024

 

1.     Gurdyal Singh son of Shri Joga Singh;

2.     Balwinder Kaur (aged about 50 years) wife of Shri Gurdyal Singh, both residents of VPO Balu, Tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                                                        …….Complainants.

                                              Versus

 

Ability Artificial Limb Solution, through its Manager/authorized person, Shop No.312, 3^rd Floor, Agro Mall, Rohtak 124001.

 

…..Opposite party

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

              Ms. Neeru Agarwal…….Member

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

 

Argued by:  Sh. Angrez Singh Pannu, counsel for complainant.

    Shri Lalit Gaur, counsel for the OP

                   

                     (Sarvjeet Kaur, Member)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that OP doing the business of Artificial Limbs under the name and style of Ability Artificial Limb Solution. The wife of complainant No.1 namely Balwinder Kaur (complainant No.2) is handicap from her left feet. Doctor suggested her to implant the B/k Socket in her left feet. Complainant No.1 contacted with the OP to purchase the suitable B/K socket for the left feet of complainant No.2. On the assurance of OP, complainant No.1 purchased B/K socket C Silicon Liner by paying a sum of Rs.30,000/- vide receipt dated 23.09.2021. After implantation, it has come to the knowledge of complainant No.2 that the socket is not properly fit in her left feet. Thereafter, complainant No.1 contacted the OP and requested him to replace the said socket. The OP assured that as it is new socket it will take some time to properly adjust in the feet. On the assurance, the complainant No.2 regularly used the said socket but due to the said socket, the complainant No.2 suffered with injury. Again, complainant No.1 requested the OP to replace the said socket, firstly the OP postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and finally refused to replace the said socket. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence the present complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; abuse of process of law; suppression of true and material facts; cause of action, etc. On merits, it is pleaded that specific silicon socket which was demanded by the complainant was properly fitted by the expert of the OP with the prosthetic leg which were preinstalled and complainant No.2 did not make any complaint regarding the fitting of above said socket. Complainant No.2 was discharged after one hour from the implantation of above said socket. After few months from the date of installation, the complainants contacted the OP and requested to check the socket. On checking, the expert of OP found that socket was modified by the complainant No.2 herself and damaged the socket. Due to modification, prosthetic leg was not properly adjusted. For the sake of betterment of complainants, the OP changed the said modified socket without making any charge and also advised if the complainants do changes in the socket by theirself, the OP will not be liable for the effect arises out of illegal modification/changes. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainants have tendered into evidence their affidavits Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW1/B, copy of bill/payment receipt slip Ex.C1, postal receipt Ex.C2, original bill/payment receipt slip Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 01.08.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Shashank, authorized person of Ability Artificial Limb Solution Ex.RW1/A, affidavit of Mohit Verma Ex.RW2/A and affidavit of Mukesh ExRW3/A, copy of degree Ex.R1, copy of registration certificate Ex.R2, copy of degree of Master In prosthetics and orthotics Ex.R3, copy of e-Registration Certificate Ex.R4, copy of degree of Bachelor in Prosthetics and Orthotics Ex.R5 and closed the evidence on 17.05.2024 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainants, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant No.1 purchased the suitable B/K socket for the left feet of complainant No.2 by paying a sum of Rs.30,000/- vide receipt dated 23.09.2021. After implantation, when the socket was not properly fit in left feet of complainant No.2, complainant No.1 contacted the OP and requested him to replace the said socket but despite repeated requests, OP did not do so. In this way, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that specific silicon socket which was demanded by the complainants was properly fitted by the expert of the OP with the prosthetic leg which were preinstalled and complainant No.2 did not make any complaint regarding the fitting of above said socket. After few months, the complainants contacted the OP and requested to check the socket. After checking, the expert of OP found that socket was modified by the complainant No.2 herself and damaged the socket. Due to modification, prosthetic leg was not properly adjusted. For the sake of betterment, the OP changed the said modified socket without making any charge. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Complainants purchased a B/K Socket Silicon Liner from the OP but as per version of the complainants, after use the same, caused injury in the left foot of the complainant No.2. Thereafter, complainants approached the OP for replacing the said socket but the OP did not do so.

11.           On the other hand, the OP has alleged that on the request of the complainants, they have checked the socket and found modified but despite that they have changed the same without charging any amount. The onus to prove the said version was relied upon the OP but the OP has miserably failed to prove the same by leading cogent and convincing evidence. The OP alleged that the complainants themselves have got modified the socket and despite that the OP has replaced the same. Neither the OP has placed on record the modified socket which was changed nor has placed on file any proof regarding changing of socket. Furthermore, when the complainants have purchased the socket from the OP as to why within the warranty period they would modified the same despite replacing the socket from the OP. Hence, the plea taken by the OP is not sustainable. OP neither removed the defects from the socket nor replaced the same during the warranty period. Thus, the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

12.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to replace the socket, in case the same is not available, then refund an amount of Rs.30,000/- as cost of the socket to the complainants.  We further direct the OP to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainants on account of mental, pain agony and harassment and towards the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The complainants are also directed to return the old socket to the OP. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Dated: 25.11.2024    

                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Neeru Agarwal)         (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                 Member                       Member