DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 15^th  day of February,  2022

Present    :  Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

                :  Smt.Vidya A., Member                                                   Date of Filing: 02/11/2018 

     CC/139/2018

Ibrahim Badusha,

Proprietor, Appolo Health Care,

Thrithala Road, Padinjarangadi,

Angadi Desam & Amsam,

Palakkad – 679 552

(Party in Person)                                                                     -           Complainant

                                                                                                 Vs

1.Authorised Signatory                      

    Trans Asia Bio-medicals Ltd.

    44/3055 B1, RR Tower,

    Deshabhimani Road, Kochi – 682012

2.Authorised Signatory,

    Trans Asia Bio-medicals Ltd.,

    Bldg.No.29/703-B1,  2^nd Floor,

    Nandanam Apartments,

    Sahakarana Road,  Vyttila PO,

    Kochin – 682 019  

(Ops  by Adv.G.Ananthakrishnan)                                           -           Opposite parties

O R D E R 

By Sri. Vinay Menon V.,  President

1. Essentially the complainant pleads that he conducts a health care laboratory for eking out his livelihood. He purchased a Fully Automated Bio-chemistry Analyser  from the opposite party on 10/6/2017.  The said machine uses two types of reagents for conducting the tests. Contrary to the ascertions by the opposite parties the reagents and the equipment does not facilitate biological analysis as assured by them and has caused gross loss to him. The complainant seeks return of Rs.6 lakhs together with interest @18% and incidental expenses altogether adding up to around Rs.18 lakhs.
2. The opposite parties countered the complaint allegations and claim that the complainant has not  suffered as alleged. The dispute is foisted as revenge for seeking interest on delayed payments for the cost of the equipment.  They further went to explain the scientific part of the analysis inorder to substantiate their contention.  They sought for dismissal of the complaint.
3. From a reading of the pleadings the following issues arise for consideration

1. Whether the complainant has successfully proved the allegations of unsatisfactory and non economical functioning of the  Fully Automated         Bio-chemistry Analyser ?
2.  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.s?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for ?

4.         Reliefs and cost, if any.

4.         Evidence comprised of deposition of complainant as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A8. Opposite parties have not filed proof affidavit nor marked any documents.

5.      It is pertinent to note that the complainant was a chronic absentee from 1/1/2020 onwards.  He had not assisted the Commission in any manner in ascertaining the veracity of his pleadings by adducing any evidence.
The complainant had filed an application as IA 306 (A)/2019 seeking appointment of an expert commissioner but had not filed a panel of experts. Hence, after prolonged opportunities,  this IA was finally dismissed on 18/12/2020.    

     Issue No. 1.

6.         As already stated supra, the complainant had not assisted this Commission in adjudicating this dispute. A report of an expert commissioner is a sine-qua-non in such matters of extreme complexity involving various technological and scientific aspects. Even though the complainant had entered the box, he himself had admitted that he is a diploma holder in  civil engineering and the lab is conducted by other technicians.  His sole experience is that he was part of a lab for four years and  admits that he has no qualifications of a lab technician.  He further stated that the same machine is still functioning and reagents supplied by the opposite parties are being used.  He admits that only an expert can give a technical opinion in this matter.

  7.     The aforesaid being the gist of the oral evidence  adduced  by the complainant,   we are unable to hold with any certainty  that the equipment which is  the subject matter of this dispute suffers from any  defect or that the complainant has suffered any losses thereof.

Hence we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any defect  in the equipment.  

 Issues No. 2,3 & 4

8.         In view of the finding in issue No.1, we do not intend to dwell deeper into these issues. The complaint stands dismissed. Parties are directed to suffer their respective cost.

 Pronounced in the open court on this the 15^th  day of February, 2022.

                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                              Vinay Menon V.

                                                 President

 Sd/-

Vidya A.

                    Member      

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 –  Copy  of registration certificate dated 29/5/2018 issued from  Pattithara

                 Grama panchayath. 

Ext.A2 –  Proposal dated 19/9/2016 issued by opposite party 1 to the complainant

Ext.A3 –   Retail invoice bearing no.480440138 dtd.10/6/2017

Ext.A4 –  Printout of purchase order dated 30/4/2017

Ext.A5 series –  Scanned impression of   7 cheques  

Ext.A6 –   Copy of brochure pertaining to the bio-chemical analyser
Ext.A7 – Copy of communication dated 19/10/2018 issued by complainant to 2^nd  opposite party

Ext.A8 -  Scanned impression of the Postal acknowledgement

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties

 Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant

PW1 – Ibrahim Badusha

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties

NIL

Cost :  No cost allowed.

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.