District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly
PETITIONER
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Complaint Case No.CC/212/2022
(Date of Filing:-12.10.20222)
Smt. Dipa Dutta, Proprietress
Deepa Diagnostics, at Flat No.A-2, Abhinandan Apartment
Sujan Bagan, Old Hospital Road, P.O. and P.S. Chinsurah
District:- Hooghly………..Complainant
-Versus
- The Authorised Manager, Olympicks Medicare System
4, 5, 6, Saikrupa, Mhate Nagar, near Lalit Kata, MIDC,
Kalyan Shil Road, P.O. and P.S. Dombivali East-421204 Maharashtra.
- Kalyan Paul of village:- Manickpur Naskarpara, (near Maitry Sangha Club), P.O. Harinavi, P.S. Sonarpur, Kolkata-700148.
……Opposite Parties
Before:-
Mr. Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President
Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya, Member
Mrs. Babita Choudhury, Member
PRESENT:
Dtd. 05.03.2024
Final Order/Judgment
Debasis Bhattacharya:- Presiding Member
Having been aggrieved over and dissatisfied with the purchase and installation of an advanced X-Ray machine in her diagnostic centre from one M/S Olympicks Medicare System (hereinafter referred to as OP 1) of the address as mentioned above and post-sales service thereof, the instant complaint petition has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Firstly, it should be mentioned here before proceeding in the matter of disposal of this case, that the case runs ex parte against both the OPs, as, in spite of proper service of notice and allowance of statutory time OP 1 preferred to stay away from the proceedings of the case and OP 2 apart from filing a written version did not appear before this Commission at any further stage.
The fact of the case is that the complainant in the year 2022 placed an order with OP 1 for purchase and installation of an advanced X-Ray machine in her diagnostic centre which was reportedly the source of earning her livelihood. The order was placed on receipt of the quotation along with all the specifications of the machine from OP 1. The proposed price of the instrument inclusive of transportation cost was Rs.3,00,000/- and the same was under one year warranty.
Accordingly the Complainant claims to have made an advance payment of Rs.1,50,000/- to the OP 1 on 27.03.2022 and balance amount on 01.04.22 on the date of dispatch through transportation.
However one Mr. Kalyan Pal i.e. OP 2 in the instant case came to install the said machine but the machine failed on test and in spite of repeated attempts the machine could not be made operative. OP 1, when contacted over phone was unresponsive. However the authorized personnel committed that they would come on 20.04.2022 and replace some parts.Finally the parts reached the Complainant’s place but further attempts by the OP 1’s representative on 22.04.2022 to install the machine went in vain again.
The Complainant made further contact with OP 2 but OP 2 expressed his inability to handle the machine any further as he did not receive his remuneration from OP 1.
When successive mails sent to OP 1 by the Complainant expressing grievances in this regard yielded no result the Complainant sent a letter on 21.05.2022 depicting her troubles and requested OP 1 to take necessary steps to make the machine operational or to replace the said X Ray machine by a new one or to make the appropriate refund with applicable interest.
This time OP1 replied through an e-mail and informed that certain payments had been paid to OP-2, perhaps towards his remuneration and the Complainant was advised to sort out her problems through OP 2. But when approached, OP 2 intimated that he was no longer the agent of OP 1 and he had no liability in this regard.
Thus, so far as the warranty and post sales service were concerned, OP 1 and 2 appeared negligent and reluctant in their approach.
Considering the OPs’ treatment with him as ‘deficiency in service and unfair trade practice’ the complaint petition has been filed in which the petitioner prays for imposing direction upon the OPs to make refund of the entire amount already paid with applicable interest the rate of which is not specified, to pay Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation for causing harassment, mental pain and agony and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards litigation cost.
The Complainant’s declared place of business is within the district of Hooghly.
The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.50,00,000/-
Thus, this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.
The issues whether there was any deficiency of service and whether the Complainant is entitled to any relief will be taken together for convenient disposal of the case.
The Complainant to corroborate her complaint has annexed copies of certain related documents viz. 1) Machine specification, 2) delivery receipt, 3) Tax Invoices, 4) Bank Statement, 5) Complaint mails and 6) Complaint letter.
OP 2 in his written version, simply endorsed almost all the allegations leveled by the Complainant against OP 1. It is also admitted by OP 2 that there was some manufacturing defect in the X-Ray machine supplied by OP 1. However OP 2 has prayed for striking off his name from the instant case.
Materials on records viz. the complaint petition, evidence on affidavit, annexed documents and brief notes of argument filed by the complainant and written version filed by the OP 2 are perused.
Evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument are simply reiteration of the content of the Complaint petition.
The documents submitted by the Complainant substantially corroborate the grievances of the petitioner. Moreover OP 2 who appears to be a technician has admitted in categorical terms that the machine had manufacturing defects.
But it is obvious that so far as the series of events is concerned OP 2 did not have a major role and OP 2 cannot be held responsible to a considerable extent for the sufferings of the Complainant.
On the other hand in spite of being intimated by mails and letter OP 1 showed a callous and indifferent attitude to the issue and did nothing either for replacement of the machine or for the repairing of the machine.
In view of the above and on perusal of the case record and documents, this Commission is of the opinion that there was gross deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the OP 1’s part.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the complaint case bearing no.212/2022 be and the same is partly allowed on contest.
It is held that the opposite parties 1 will be liable to make refund of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% for the period from 01.04.2022 to the actual date of refund.
This Commission further directs the OP 1 to pay the Complainant Rs.30,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and further Rs.20,000/- towards litigation cost.
Opposite party 1 will have to comply with this order within 45 days from the date of this order. In the event of failure to comply with this order, the opposite party 1 will have to pay a cost of Rs.15,000/- by depositing the same in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties or their authorized Advocates/Agents on record, by hand against proper acknowledgement or sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The final order will be available in the respective website i.e. www.confonet.nic.in.
