Order No. 21 dt. 17/07/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is a dentist and for the purpose of her chamber she purchased some equipment from o.p. no.2 at a price of Rs.2,06,500/-. After the installation of those machines in her chamber she found various defects and she brought it to the notice of o.p. no.2, the technical representative of o.p. no.1 visited and inspected the said machines and temporary solved the problem but the said problem remained unrectified. The complainant thereafter made contact with o.p. no.2 and no improvement could be made by the said representative. It was further stated that because of such defect in the machines the complainant is suffering problem in operating those machines for which the complainant asked to the o.ps. for replacement of those machines, but no effective step was taken for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for replacement of those machines and also prayed for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.
In spite of receipt of notices the o.p nos.1 and 4 did not contest this case by filing w/v and as such, the case has proceeded ex parte against them. The o.p. nos.2 and 3 were expunged from the cause title.
The complainant has not adduced any evidence, only stated that the petition of complaint be treated as evidence. On the basis of the said fact ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased the machines relating to running of the dental clinic of the complainant and during the operation of those machines the complainant noticed several defects and she brought it to the notice of o.ps. but no effective step was taken. Ld. lawyer for the complainant also emphasized that the representative of o.p. no.2 visited the place of the complainant and after examination some defects were removed and with the expiry of some days again the said problems cropped up for which the complainant had to filed this case praying for replacement of the machines due to manufacturing defects in those machines. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for replacement of those machines and also prayed for other reliefs.
On perusal of the materials on record it appears that the complainant being a dentist purchased those machines for opening her chamber and for purchasing those machines she paid Rs.2,06,500/- to o.p. no.2 and o.p. no.2 supplied those machines to the complainant. After the defects noticed by the complainant, the complainant informed the said fact to o.p. no.2 and the representative of the company visited the complainant’s place and examined those machines and submitted a report whereby it was mentioned that the problems highlighted by the complainant were resolved and the complainant put her signature after agreeing with the problems solved by the representative of the company. Some minor defects were found and the representative of the company advised the complainant to take some steps which would have eradicated those problems. It appears from the record that the complainant in order to proof that the machines were defective did not pray for seeking expert’s opinion in order to prove that the machines had manufacturing defects. It also appears from the record that the complainant made some allegations against the o.ps. including those machines without any cogent reason whatsoever against him to establish the fact that actually those machines were defective at the time of purchase or after using those machines the problems cropped up. Since no cogent evidence has been adduced by the complainant to that effect, therefore we hold that the complainant has miserably failed to prove the case against the o.ps. and as such, the complainant will not be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.664/2013 is dismissed ex parte without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
