The dispute relates to 2010, we are in 2019. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant – imaging and diagnostic co. and the respondent – dental institute were heard. The material on record was perused. 2. We observe that the Registry has reported a delay of 15 days in filing the appeal and that no application for the condonation of delay has been filed by the imaging and diagnostic co. The delay in filing this first appeal is however overlooked. 3. The dispute relates to defects in an X-ray machine supplied by the imaging and diagnostic co. to the dental institute not having been repaired during the annual maintenance contract (AMC) period. 4. The State Commission had heard both sides, appraised the evidence and allowed the complaint of the dental institute vide its Order dated 07.07.2011: 16. On the above said facts it can be considered that the complainants have filed this complaint to replace the defective x-ray machine with a new one which is functional and useful or in the alternative to repay the cost paid by the complainants with compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- which they assessed as the damage when they were unable to use the machine. 17. It is seen from the documents filed by the parties the complainants have allowed the technician of the OP to carry out the repair. But in spite of their efforts they could not rectify the defect permanently. The Engineers of the Ops visited the college and on thorough checking they found that the problem with CPU card and informed to the college authorities that the repair is beyond the respondents’ engineer. This one admission is enough to deny the other contentions taken by the Ops in their defense. 18. From the facts narrated above, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of Ops in not rendering the service required by a businessman to the complainants’ institution. The complainant is an educational institution which has been established to impart education to the qualified candidates. These defective materials have been supplied to an Educational Institution which ultimately affects the interest of the students which in turn affects the general public. Therefore, we are of the firm view the conduct of the OP is not appreciable and certainly it amounts to deficiency in service. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the Ops are liable to replace the x-ray machine with a new one or in the alternative pay the cost paid by the complainants. Hence we pass the following: O R D E R The compliant is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to replace the Panormaic X-ray Machine (OPG) Model STRADO 2000d with a new one which is functional and useful to the complainants with fresh warranty within a period of four months. Failure to do so, the Ops are directed to pay Rs. 21,00,000/- to the complainant with interest at 12% pa from the date of compliant till realization subject to handing over possession of the x-ray machine which is the subject matter of this complaint to the Ops. The Ops are directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainants towards the costs of the proceedings. (paras 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the State Commission’s Order) (emphasis supplied) 5. We find the Order of the State Commission to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. We note in particular the extracts of the appraisal made by the State Commission, quoted, verbatim, in para 4 above. 6. The only short point in this case is whether the supplier co. was duty-bound to repair the subject X-ray machine during the AMC period. 7. The subject X-ray machine was supplied by the imaging and diagnostic co. to the dental institute on agreed cost and terms; the terms included a warranty of one year and an annual maintenance contract (AMC) of two years; the machine developed several technical defects during the AMC period; the defects, like malfunctioning of CPU, error 553 which signifies filament broken, were not / could not be repaired by the supplier co.; the dental institute was ready and willing to pay the cost / charges for repair / replacement of part(s); the supplier co.’s engineer(s) / functionaries reported that ‘CPU Card’ needs replacement; the supplier co. failed to replace it; the stated reason was that the principal company (Villa Sistemi Medicali Italy) had undergone changes in its operational arrangements in India and was unable to provide the requisite ‘CPU Card’ to the supplier co. based in India; the machine but remained unrepaired, non-functional. The above facts are not disputed. 8. We may note that the imaging and diagnostic machine came with an assured warranty of one year and an assured annual maintenance contract (AMC) for two years as an integral part of the purchase. Assured maintenance for a certain period would be a valid and material consideration while selecting a machine and its supplier, the buyer would rightly assume that on purchasing a machine with an AMC he would be secure against post-purchase defects and would get prompt and dutiful service at just cost during the AMC period at the least. 9. The complainant, a dental institute, imparting education in specialized sciences, purchased the subject medical device, an X-ray machine, for imaging and diagnostics, worth Rs. 21 lakh, along with a warranty of one year and an AMC of two years, with a view to inter alia be secure apropos post-purchase support and service, repair and maintenance. It was the responsibility of the supplier co. to, one, depute qualified service engineer/s to determine the fault, two, to ensure that the requisite part(s) were duly available, and, three, to rectify the fault, promptly and dutifully, at just cost. 10. Both, deficiency in service, and unfair trade practice, are evident in the case. Deficiency in service, by not honoring the AMC promptly and dutifully, unfair trade practice, by selling an expensive imaging and diagnostic machine with an AMC as an integral part of the sale, and being unfair and deceptive in not being explicit and forthcoming with the buyer at the time of sale that some / crucial part(s) are / could be contingent on operational arrangements with a foreign principal company. 11. The first appeal, being misconceived and devoid of merit, is dismissed. 12. On 29.01.2019, when this bench, on conclusion of arguments, observed that there was no merit in the appeal, the learned counsel for the supplier co. submitted that it is now willing and ready to replace the subject X-ray machine with a new one of the same make and model. We however note that the subject X-ray machine is lying idle since 2008; the complaint was filed before the State Commission on 01.01.2010; the State Commission pronounced its Order on 07.07.2011; the first appeal was filed in this Commission on 12.09.2011; the final arguments were heard on 29.01.2019; the State Commission allowed the complaint and ordered the supplier co. to replace the subject machine with a new one with fresh warranty within a period of four months, and failing which to pay Rs. 21 lakh to the dental institute with interest @ 12% p.a. In the said facts, the submission of the learned counsel for the supplier co. does not find favour with this bench. It is too little, too late. The award made by the State Commission is confirmed as such. 13. Needless to add that the State Commission shall undertake execution of its Order as per the law. 14. A copy of this Order be sent to the State Commission by the Registry within ten days. | 
