Haryana

Kaithal

CC/220/2022

MS. Jahanvi Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Healthcare Device etc. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Inderjit Mettha

29 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 220 of 2022.

                                                               Date of institution:   07.09.2022.

                                                               Date of decision:      29.02.2024.

 

Jahanvi Singh, Shree Shyam Physio Care and Wellness Clinic, M.I.T.C. Colony, Kaithal City, Kaithal (Opposite Mini Secretariat). 

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                        Versus

 

1. Indian Healthcare Device through its Prop., E-136, Prasad Vihar, Rohini, Sector-25, New Delhi-110042.
2. S.K. Enterprises, through its Prop., Z-40, DSIDC Complex, Opp. Vidya Vihar, Out Ring Road, Mangolpuri, Delhi-110063.
3. Rajnikant Tiwari s/o Shri Uma Shankar Tiwari, r/o A-45, Jain Nagar Extension, Village Karala, North West, Delhi-110081.

...Opposite Parties

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Shri Rahul Gupta, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                   Opposite Parties ex-parte.

                  

ORDER  - SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.                The complainant alleged that she is a qualified physiotherapist and earning her livelihood by using the machineries, apparatus being manufactured and sold by OPs. That she had purchased different equipment apparatus and machineries from OPs vide Invoice No.3595 and 16 dated 21.03.2022 as per details given below:-

S.No.	Items	Cost (Rs.)
a	TENS (4+1 No- wires not flow electric current)	20000
b	TRACTION with Table not working properly	17000
c	Shoulder wheel	1500
d	Trolley 5 N. Still bent not in  use	7500
e	Hydro Collator not working till date	12000
f	Bed (5 No.)

 

          That detail of defects item-wise is as under:-

1. Tens (1) out of 5 machines all Tens machines are not in proper working condition. The output current of the machine through wires are not appropriate which makes the wires and pads for the output burns. (2) While running the appliance the patient feels jerks and inappropriate current passage which creates more pain and spasm to the patient.
2. Traction (1) Table – Quality of the traction table is not upto mark as the spring which pulls and reverse does not work properly. Spring attached to the bed only pulls the patient but does not release it properly which gives the patient bad jerks  in between the treatment (2) Traction Machine – Rope attached inside the machine is of very poor quality. It never pulls properly. Puling and releasing mechanism inside the machine is lacking. The machine is also not properly fitted.
3. Shoulder Wheel (1) While moving the shoulder wheel to and fro in pendulum way the iron rods inside rubs over another rods which creates collision and making friction which gives bad jerk and makes the nuts loose side by side.
4. Z Trolley (1) All the five trolley are in very poor quality as it is difficult to use them as after placing appliance over that trolley, it gets bends towards one side. It is totally imbalanced (2) Wheels of the trolley are also of poor quality, after every 3^rd day, we have to attach that wheel or to take it away to get it weld.
5. Hydro Collateral Bath Tub – Aluminum of this bath tub is of cheap quality, it is holder inside the tub had broken on the 10^th day of working. OPs had not provide complete paor of the moist heat packs and that too very light weighted. (2) Lower end of the bath tub leaked every time we refill it with water.      
6. Beds – Wooden bed was broken in between. Upon complaint, OPs replaced the same but same was of iron instead of wooden.

                   That all the machineries and apparatuses were found defective and one of Tens machinery and Traction with table was found broken. That the OPs replaced with other beds and charged further Rs.5000/- additional amount. That she had paid Rs.2200/- for repair of the equipment. That she made repeated requests to the OPs in this regard, but all in vain. That the above act and conduct of OPs, amounts to gross deficiency in service, due to which, she suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss, constraining her, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OPs failed to appear before this Commission on the respective date fixed i.e. 07.11.2022 and 02.02.2023, despite receipt of notices of this Commission, as such, OPs were proceeded, against ex-parte, on that dates, by this Commission.

4.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C21.

5.                However, during the pendency of the present complaint, complainant moved an application for calling a report from Expert Mechanic regarding quality of the products in question, which was allowed vide order dated 09.10.2023 by this Commission, as such, expert report was received on 21.02.2024.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record carefully.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is a qualified physiotherapist and earning her livelihood by using the machineries, apparatus being manufactured and sold by OPs. He further argued that the complainant had purchased different equipment apparatus and machineries from OPs vide Invoice No.3595 and 16 dated 21.03.2022, but the quality of those products was very poor and cheap and the complainant approached the OPs various times in this regard with a request either to replace those defective products or to pay the cost amount, but all in vain. He further argued that the complainant left with no other option except to get repaired those defective products from outside by paying the extra amount. He further argued that the act of OPs of selling defective, cheap and poor quality of products, amount to gross deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

8.                Admittedly, the complainant purchased various equipment apparatus and machineries from the OPs vide Bills Annexure C-4 to Annexure C-6 respectively.

9.                Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the products, sold by the OPs were defective, cheap and of poor quality, due to which, some of the products became out of order from the very beginning and some of the products have broken or damaged while using the same, due to which, the complainant deprived from using those products. He further contended that complainant also got repaired some products from Umed Enterprises, Hisar and spent Rs.2200/- on this and produced bill in this regard as Annexure C-7 on the case file. He further contended that the above act and conduct of OPs amounts to gross deficiency in service on their part.

10.              During the pendency of the present complaint, complainant moved an application for calling a report from Expert Mechanic from ITI, Kaithal regarding quality of the products in question, which was allowed, vide order dated 18.01.2024. As such, Principal, ITI, Kaithal was directed to appoint some expert/mechanic to check the Tens, Traction with Table, Shoulder Wheels, Trolley 5N. Hydro Collator and Bed (5N), who submitted its report on 21.02.2024 as Mark A, on the case file. The observations, made by said expert, in report Mark-A, reads as under:-

1. Tens:          One Tens machine out of five is not working and it cannot power ON. Also the cables connectors are of poor quality.
2. Traction with Table:      Rope attached inside the traction machine is of low quality and breaks while machine is running. The pulling and releasing mechanism of table is of appropriate quality.
3. Shoulder Wheel:            The iron rod in the shoulder wheel does not have any sliding mechanism in between. Without any bearing it is damaged and not fit for use.
4. Z Trolley:    The quality of Z Trollies is appropriate and the bending problem of trolley is due to missing screws and miss alignment.
5. Hydro Collator:    Holder inside the hydro collator bath tub is of low quality. It get rusted and broken. Due to this water leaks from holes in upper end of tub.
6. Beds:          Iron beds are in working condition and fit for use.                 

 

11.                  So, from the perusal of above-mentioned observations, made by the expert in his report Mark-A, it is evident that the above-mentioned products i.e. Tens, Traction with Table, Shoulder Wheel, Z Trolley, Hydro Collator were defective and of poor and cheap quality, due to which, as per complainant, some of the products became useless for him, whereas some of products have been got repaired by him, from the market, by paying additional amount of Rs.2200/-, vide bill Annexure C-7. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant made various requests to the OPs either to replace these defective products with new one or to refund their cost price, but all in vain.

12.              In order to support his contentions, complainant produced copy of legal notice sent to the OPs as Annexure C-1, postal receipts Annexure C-2, C-3, purchasing bills of products in question Annexure C-4 to C-6, bills of repair of Rs.2200/- Annexure C-7 and photos of the defective products as Annexure C-8 to C-20, on the case file. Whereas, contrary to it, the OPs failed to appear, before this Commission, despite receipt of notices, from this Commission and opted to be proceeded against ex-parte, due to which, the ex-parte evidence, adduced on record, by the complainant, remained unrebutted and unchallenged. Hence, case of the complainant is proved ex-parte, which was duly supported by oral as well as documentary evidence.  

13.              So, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the above-mentioned products, sold by the OPs to the complainant, were defective, cheap and of poor quality and the OPs neither replaced the same nor refund its cost price, to the complainant, which amounts to gross deficiency in service, on the part of OPs, due to which, the complainant has suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss, and ultimately, left with no other option, except to knock the door of this Commission, by way of filing the complaint in hand. As such, the OPs, not only liable to refund the cost price of these products along with repair charges, but also liable to pay the compensation amount with litigation expenses, to the complainant.

14.              From the bill Annexure C-4 to Annexure C-6, we found that the total cost price of the defective products are Rs.59,000/- i.e. Rs.21,000 for Tens (5000+8000+8000 as mentioned at Sr. No.6 in Annexure C-4 and at Sr. No.2 & 3 in Annexure C-6 respectively) + Rs.17,000/- for Traction with Table (mentioned at Sr. No.27 in Annexure C-5) + Rs.1500/- for Shoulder Wheel (mentioned at Sr. No.11 in Annexure C-6) + Rs.7500/- for Z Trolley (mentioned at Sr. No.23 in Annexure C-5) + Rs.12000 for Hydro Collator (mentioned at Sr. No.8 in Annexure C-6). Hence, the OPs are liable to pay Rs.59,000/- + Rs.2200/- (repair charges of bill Annexure C-7), total Rs.61,200/-, to the complainant.

15.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct OPs to pay Rs.61,200/-, to the complainant along with compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- + litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-, within a period of 45 days, from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the award amount shall carry the interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of this order, till its actual realization.

16.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of Court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:29.02.2024.

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                       President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.