BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 06/2014 Filed on 06.01.2014

ORDER DATED: 17.06.2016

Complainant:

Dr. Deepak. P.G, Pranavam, S-15, Shanthinagar, Sreekaryam, Thiruvananthapuram-695 017.

Opposite parties:

1. M/s Confident Dental Equipments Pvt. Ltd., P.O Box No. 7939, Pete Chinnappa Estate, Kamakshipalya, Magadi Road, Bangalore-560 079.

2. M/s Confident Dental Equipments Pvt. Ltd., #4, 1^st Floor, Sivadas Tower, Opp: Maymoon Theatre, Chittoor Road, Kochi-682 018.

(By Adv. Betzy M. Joseph)

This C.C having been heard on 29.04.2016, the Forum on 17.06.2016 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR:  MEMBER

Case of the complainant is as follows:  Complainant is a dental doctor by profession.  He placed an order for two dental chairs and an X-ray machine on 14.10.2012 from Confident Dental Equipments Ltd.  The total price of the products were Rs. 4,14,891/-.  Rs. 10,000/- was advanced on 14.10.2012.  CDEL Cochin on confirmation of the order asked the complainant to pay the amount as two installments to their Bangalore account.  Complainant made the payment as two installments of Rs. 1,30,015/- on 9^th January 2013 and Rs. 2,74,876/- on 16^th April 2013 by SBI Internet Banking facility.  On 10^th of March complainant placed another order for a compressor and dental trolley.  An autoclave package was also added to this order later.  The total price of the products were Rs. 1,20,769/-.  Rs. 5,000/- was advanced on 16^th March 2013.  On confirmation of the order by CDEL complainant made the payment as two installments of Rs. 40,005/- on 16^th of April 2013 and Rs. 80,764/- on 9^th July 2013 by SBI Internet Banking facility.  The first order was delivered to the complainant on 23-04-2013, but the second order which was assured by opposite party to be delivered by first week of May was delayed.  Complainant had his clinic inauguration announced in the month of June, 2013.  Complainant informed the matter to opposite party and they told him that the product will be delivered by first week of June 2013.  By the start of June 2013, complainant came to know that there was a strike on the warehouse of the CDEL, Bangalore so complainant tried to cancel the order, but then again 2^nd opposite party ensured him that the delivery will be made soon.  After a long wait the products were delivered to him on 2^nd August 2013.  The dental trolley that the complainant ordered was out of stock and hence it was cancelled and its payment Rs. 18,632/- was refunded to him on 27^th August 2013.  Due to delay in delivery the inauguration was rescheduled to 17.08.2013.  While installing the product at complainant’s clinic Mr. Shangli (Service Technician, CDEL) informed the complainant that the X-ray machine delivered to him was not what he ordered for, but a cheaper model.  Mr. Shangli himself reported this matter to Mr. Sharath (Branch Manager, CDEL, Cochin) and he asked Mr. Shangli to install the misplaced product until the original one is delivered.  Mr. Sharath then assured the complainant that the original machine would be delivered to him in 2 weeks time.  Now it has been 4 months and till now the product has not been placed.  Opposite parties showed no interest in resolving the matter.  Complainant was asked to talk to their higher officials by whomever person complainant has contacted.  Complainant had to call upon every one they asked him to in CDEL and explain the matter to them, but all in vain.  During installation 3 way syringe of a dental chair was found defective by Mr. Shangli.  This was also reported to opposite party.  This should have been replaced under the one year replacement warranty of the parts, as assured to him by the representative of the opposite party during purchase.  Even after four months the parts have not been replaced.  The earnings from the clinic is the only source of income of the complainant for his livelihood.  The dental chair is an unavoidable component in the clinic.  Even a basic check up of the patient cannot be properly done without a proper working dental chair.  Even in the warranty period the service from opposite party was extremely poor and complainant doubts how proper the services will be after warranty period.  Complainant has lost trust in CDEL group and its services assured.  So he request this Forum to ask the opposite party to take back the supplied machinery and refund its price with interest @ 12% per annum. 

Opposite parties filed version contending as follows:  The complainant ordered Blue X-ray unit, due to non-availability of the same and after making urgent demands through telephone for installation of any temporary X-ray unit by the complainant, the opposite party installed the New Life Radiology X-ray unit temporarily.  After installing the first temporary X-ray unit later on 24.04.2014 the opposite party send Blue X-ray unit to the complainant, it was received by the complainant.  Again an unit of X-ray was sent to the complainant.  Even after receiving the same he was not permitted the agents of opposite party to install the X-ray units and take back the temporary unit.  Now the complainant retained two additional X-ray units illegally.  The complainant purposely cheat the opposite party.  The illegal action performed by the complainant cause huge damages and untold hardship to the opposite party.  The action of the complainant is illegal and tried to harass and defame the opposite party.  The act of the complainant clearly demonstrates that complainant did not approach this Forum with clean hands.  The complainant makes wrongful loss to the opposite party.  The complainant tries to suppress real facts by means of adducing false allegations.  The opposite party issued three types of X-ray mounting arrangement such as wheel mounted on 4 wheels model No. C70-D, chair Mount Model No C 70-E and wall mount model No. C70-F.  Even though the opposite party issued three units the complainant filed frivolous and vexatious application.  The complainant is not obeying the statutory requirements such as registration, obtain licence etc.  The opposite party issued three X-ray units instead of one unit.  Even though the opposite party sent three X-ray units to the complainant, the complainant is not willing and ready to install the second and 3^rd units and take back the first temporary X-ray unit.  It means that the complainant purposely tried to defame the opposite party.  The act of the complainant cause huge loss and damage to the opposite party. 

Complainant filed affidavit along with documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P7.  Opposite party also filed affidavit without any documentary evidence.  An expert was appointed from this Forum to ascertain the facts in the complaint.  He filed his report which was marked as Ext. C1. 

Issues raised:

1. Whether the allegations in the complaint is proved?
2. Reliefs and costs, if any?

Issues (i) & (ii):- Perused the evidence and heard the parties.  Here the complainant is alleging deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  To ascertain the same, an expert was appointed from this Forum and he filed his report which was marked as Ext. C1.  The report clearly points out that the allegations raised by the complainant against the opposite party is true and correct.  Not even a scrap of paper is produced by the opposite party to contradict the findings of the expert.  Report clearly points out the defects which were as follows:  “The X-ray unit installed in the spot is viz New Life Radiology (Italy).  It is a wall mounting type unit.  Generally dental X-ray units are available in three types-Dental Chair mounting type, wall mounting type and floor mounting type.  Cost of X-ray unit varies in accordance with the quality and type of the unit.  The present wall mounted X-ray unit in the spot is not much costly.  In a wall mounting type X-ray unit, the X-ray tube head is fixed using an arm.  The proximal end of the arm is called horizontal arm and the distal end is hinge arm.  Using a tube holder, tube head is connected to the hinge arm.  The horizontal arm is fixed to the wall.  Thus arms holds X-ray tube head and X-ray control unit.  In this arrangement, X-ray tube head can be focused for Radiography at any position without any movement.  The installed unit in the spot shows a tendency of drifting when the tube head is in the left hand side of the patient.  Mr. Vishnu, M/s confident Dental Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Kochi present in the spot, agrees that the supplied unit is a different unit and the installed unit some problem in the horizontal arm.  When this unit is used to take X-ray at certain position due to tube head drifting film-spoil.  To meet the purpose, repeat X-raying will take place.  As a result, patients are exposed to unwanted radiations.  Radiation exposure to patient can be minimized using lead coverings.  But Atomic Energy Regulatory authority is not recommending this kind of repeating X-rays.  The above problem will affect the income and the name of the clinic.  Dissatisfaction will be the final result.  Two dental chairs are installed in two rooms.  Among other accessories, three way syringe system is used to remove particles produced in the mouth using compressed air.  This is not working.   Mr. Vishnu, M/s confident Dental Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Kochi agrees that the defect is present from the date of installation.  The second dental chair namely ‘Mookambika’ shows two defect in rotor point and in suction device.  Suction device is working partly.  Mr. Vishnu, M/s confident Dental Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Kochi, agrees that the defect is there.  Parcels kept in rooms is a clear evidence of the irresponsibility of the supplier.  Supplier fails to supply the requested X-ray unit.  They delivered unwanted components which do not serve the purpose.  These boxes are creating inconveniences”. 

So we have to go with the findings in the report, which clearly points out the defects and will not serve the purpose of its purchase.  So the complainant is eligible to get back the amount he paid towards the purchase of the defective equipment.  Since the purpose for which the apparatus were purchased is not served, complainant is eligible for compensation also.  He was unnecessarily dragged to a litigation in the midst of his profession.  So he is eligible for compensation.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we fix the amount as Rs. 50,000/-. 

In the result, complaint is allowed.  Opposite parties are jointly and severally ordered to refund Rs. 4,14,313/- to the complainant along with Rs. 50,000/- as compensation within 2 months of receipt of this order, failing which complainant is eligible for 9% interest for Rs. 4,14,313/- till the date of payment.  On payment of this amount, opposite party can take back all the machines from the premises of the complainant.  Rs. 5,000/- is ordered as cost of this complaint. 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 17^th day of June 2016.

Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER 

 Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                            : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 06/2014

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Order Confirmation issued by 1^st opposite party

P1(a) - Copy of account statement for the period 09.01.2013 to 09.01.2013

P1(b) - Copy of account statement for the period 16.04.2013 to 16.04.2013

P2     - Letter dated 04.04.2013 issued by Confident Dental Equipments Ltd.

P3     - Order booking at expodent Chennai 2013 dated 10.03.2013

P3(a) - Copy of account statement for the period 16.04.2013 to 16.04.2013

P3(b) - Copy of account statement for the period 09.07.2013 to 09.07.2013

P4     - Copy of installation certificate dated 16.08.2013

P5     - Copy of e-mail letter

P5(a) - Page 2 of Ext. P5 e-mail letter

P6     - Copy of e-mail letter dated 12.09.2013

P6(a) - Page 2 of the e-mail letter dated 12.09.2013

P6(b) - Page 3 of the e-mail letter dated 12.09.2013

P6(c) - Page 4 of the e-mail letter dated 12.09.2013  

P7     - Delivery note dated 09.08.2013

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                             NIL

  V     COURT EXHIBIT:

          C1     - Commission Report   

                                                                                                               Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb