BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Dr.Vivek Mehta, resident of E-294, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1]  M/s Chandigarh Medical Corporation, SCO 345-46, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.

2]  Mr.D.S.Kohli, Proprietor of M/s Chandigarh Medical Corporation, SCO 345-46, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

                      ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                  PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL       MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh.Sandeep Khunger, Counsel for complainant.

Sh. D.S.Kohli, OP-2 in person and Proprietor of OP No.1          

PER SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

        Briefly stated, the complainant purchased a mesogun-mesogreen medical equipment from the OPs on 20.11.2010 for a sum of Rs.90,000/-. The OPs told that the said Gun is brand new and free from any defects. When the complainant put the said gun/equipment to use, he realized that the same is faulty. When complainant contacted the OPs, they informed that there may be some problem with the charging, so they will replace the same with new one. There was also some strain marks on the gun.  Thus, the complainant realized that the OPs have not supplied him a brand new gun. Even no bill was supplied to him.

        It is alleged that the OPs kept on making the excuses and delayed the replacement of the Gun. In the meantime, they got encashed two cheques amounting to Rs.55,000/-. On realizing that OPs are not going to replace the old & defective gun with new one, he stopped the payment of third cheque of Rs.35,000/- under intimation to OPs. It is averred that the OPs sent a reply dated 15.1.2011 alongwith Photostat copy of the bill dated 4.1.2011, wherein only the model number has been mentioned without any serial number of the gun, which gives the impression that OPs had supplied an old/used gun. It is further alleged that when the OPs failed to satisfy the complainant, he got served a legal notice on OP No.1, but to no effect. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.       The OPs in their reply stated that the complainant has received Mesogun on 2.11.2011 and after using for 18 days, he issued three post dated cheques of Rs.20,000/-, Rs.35,000/- and Rs.35,000/- on 20.11.2011.  At the time of issuing the cheques, the complainant neither pointed out any defect nor there was any complaint about the quality & working of the Gun. It is stated that if the gun was defective, the complainant would not have issued post-dated cheques to them.

        It is further replied that there was no dent on the outer cover of the gun at the time of its delivery and the gun was new one.  Since the Gun was used by the complainant for more than two months, it could have been damaged. The complainant took advantage of one unrealized cheque of Rs.35,000/- and took a false stand. The OPs never agreed to replace the Gun because the equipment was new one. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.       We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and Sh.D.S.Kohli, OP-2 in person and Proprietor of OP-1 and have also perused the record.

5.       The case of the complainant is that he purchased a mesogun-mesogreen medical equipment from Opposite Parties on 20.11.2010 for a sum of Rs.90,000/-. He installed the said equipment in his clinic. 

6.       The contention of the complainant is that when the mesogun-mesogreen was put to use, he realized that the same is faulty and cannot be used in wireless mode. The complainant has also contended that there were stain as well as dent marks on the outer cover of mesogun-mesogreen, which shows that OPs had supplied him an old & used equipment, instead of new one.

7.       It was argued by the ld.Counsel for the complainant that the OPs kept making excuses on one pretext or the other in order to delay the replacement of the measogun/equipment and in the meantime, got encashed two cheques amounting to Rs.55,000/-. However, on realizing that the OPs have supplied old & defective equipment and are not replacing the same with new one, the complainant had to stop the payment of third cheque of Rs.35,000/- under intimation to OPs. 

8.       Annexure C-2 is the reply of Opposite Party, in response to the letter dated 9.1.2011 of the complainant.  In this reply, the OPs have categorically stated that “…The Mesogun-Mesogree-3500 supplied by us carry warranty of one year against manufacturing defects.  If you feel that this is any manufacturing defect in the gun, please inform us in detail, so that, we may get it repaired, if required.”      

9.       The complainant has no where stated in his complaint that he ever took the measogun/equipments in question to Opposite Parties for carrying out any repair, in case it was not working properly.  This act of the complainant itself shows that his assertion about the measogun in question as defective & faulty is totally based on assumption & presumption. The bald assertions of complainant in this regard cannot be taken into account.

10.      More so, the contention of the complainant about manufacturing defect in the equipment in question is also verbal in nature.  He has not placed on record any expert opinion or any documentary evidence to prove his stand that there is an inherent defect or manufacturing defect in the machine in question, so it needs replacement.

11.      Moreover, the complainant has not paid complete amount of the equipment to the OPs.  Rather, stopped the payment of third cheque of Rs.35,000/-, which he himself admitted. This act of complainant is bad in nature and makes him defaulter in making payment.   

12.      In view of the above facts & circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  The complaint has no merit and substance.  The same is accordingly dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

13.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.