Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/19/2017

Dr. S.R. Gupta, S/o Late S.Sanjeevaiah. aged 69 years, Cardiologist - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Recorders and Medicare Systems Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director / Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Vajrala Chandra Sekhar, S.Badrinath Gupta

01 Dec 2017

ORDER

Filing Date: 08.05.2017

Order Date:01.12.2017

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

FRIDAY THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.19/2017

 

 

Between

 

 

Dr.S.R.Gupta,

S/o. late. S.Sanjeevaiah,

Hindu, aged 69 years,

Consultant Cardiologist,

Amrutha Heart Care Centre,

No.151, Sairam Street,

Tirupati – 517 507,

Chittoor District,

Andhra Pradesh.                                                                               … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

M/s. Recorders & Medicare Systems Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director / Manager,

Registered Office, Plot No.181/5,

Industrial Area, Phase-1,

Chandigarh – 160 002.                                                                    …  Opposite party.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 15.11.17 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.V.Chandra Sekhar, Sri.S.Badri Nath Gupta, counsel for complainant, and opposite party remained ex-parte, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section –12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant against the opposite party for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2,80,000/- i.e. Rs.80,000/- towards cost of the TMT machine, Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization, 2) to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.25,000/- towards legal expenses and to pass such other or further reliefs as the Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.   

2. The brief averments of the complaint are:-  That the complainant, cardiologist by profession placed an order on 07.03.2015 with opposite party for supply of Treadmill Machine for Rs.1,30,000/- with two years warranty and a cheque of Rs.30,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, S.V.Medical College Branch, Tirupati, bearing No.994600 dt:07.03.2015 was given in favour of the opposite party. The representative of the opposite party informed that the balance of amount will be paid after installation and working of the machine, and further agreed for comprehensive maintenance of the machine for two years, as per the warranty from the date of installation. The opposite party sent TMT machine bearing number Vega-201 S.No.TMT/1502001/ARBX, and it was delivered to the complainant on 18.03.2015 at Tirupati, as the full amount was not paid, the invoice is with the opposite party only.

3.  In the last week of March 2015, the technicians deputed by the opposite party from Hyderabad came to Tirupati for installation of the TMT machine in the hospital / clinic of the complainant and found that the machine was got some technical defects and they could not detect the said defects. On 08.06.2015 the Service Engineer of the opposite party came to Tirupati, examined the TMT machine and found that “waveform” was disturbed due to internal error / fault of acquisition box and it was replaced with another acquisition box in S.No.TMT/1407007/ARBX and requested the complainant to observe the functioning of TMT machine for 20 days and then clear the remaining balance. Since the problem was continued in the machine, the complainant addressed a letter dt:19.06.2015 to the Service Engineer  (Mr.Rahul Sharma), Erragadda, Hyderabad, intimating him that the functioning of the machine was unsatisfactory and showing abnormal readings and various defects were pointed out and the treadmill recordings were also sent for verification.

4.  That the complainant also explained to the Service Engineer on phone about the functioning of the TMT machine. On the suggestions of the Service Engineer, the complainant also purchased a new computer and new UPS by spending Rs.33,350/-, inspite of it the problem continued in the TMT machine. On 15.02.2016 one Pankaj Sharma, Service Engineer of the opposite party came and tried to rectify the problem, but he could not. He assured that the defect will be rectified by a Senior Service Engineer and obtained a cheque bearing No.440721 drawn on Indian Bank, Tirupati dt:15.02.2016 for Rs.50,000/- and further assured that the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- will not be claimed till the defect is fully rectified. The Senior Service Engineer came to the hospital of the complainant, but he also failed to rectify the problem. Later the opposite party stopped responding to the phone calls of the complainant.

5.  That the complainant further stated that the TMT test can be used to diagnose cardiac disease and assess the patient prognosis after a myocardial infarction. The cardiac stress test is done with exercise on treadmill. The values obtained during the treadmill tests are very much useful for the cardiologists in diagnosing the problem of the patient. The machine supplied by the opposite party became burden to the complainant and caused monitory loss apart from disturbing his practice, the complainant is put to extreme hardship due to unsatisfactory functioning of the TMT machine. The TMT machine supplied by the opposite party had manufacturing defect. The opposite party had supplied defective and sub-standard machine and later they avoided even to respond the phone calls of the complainant. They failed to rectify the defect in the TMT machine even though received a sum of Rs.80,000/- out of its cost. On 10.03.2017, the complainant got issued legal notice but it was returned un-served as refused. The opposite party having supplied the TMT machine failed to rectify its defect and thus committed deficiency in service on their part. Hence the complaint.

6.  The opposite party remained ex-parte.

7.  The complainant filed his evidence affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9.

8.  Now the points for consideration are:-

(i).  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

(ii).  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

(iii).  To whate relief?

9.  Point No.(i):- It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased TMT machine for Rs.1,30,000/- from the opposite party and paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- on the date of purchase through a cheque bearing No.994600 dt:07.03.2015 drawn on Andhra Bank, S.V.Medical College Branch, Tirupati, and later he paid another amount of Rs.50,000/- through a cheque bearing No.440721 dt:15.02.2016 drawn on Indian Bank, Tirupati, and the same was received by the Service Engineer of the opposite party. That the opposite party has supplied TMT machine bearing number Vega-201 S.No.TMT/1502001/ARBX, and the same was received by the complainant on 18.03.2015. Later the opposite party deputed their technicians to install the TMT machine at the hospital of the complainant, but the technicians found that there is some technical defect in the machine and they could not detect what is the defect laying in the machine. Later on 08.06.2015 a Service Engineer deputed by the opposite party also thoroughly examined the TMT machine so supplied by the opposite party and found that “waveform” was disturbed due to internal error / fault of acquisition box, then the said acquisition box was replaced with a new acquisition box S.No.TMT/1407007/ARBX and tried to run the machine, but its functioning was unsatisfactory. Then the Service Engineer requested the complainant to observe the functioning of the TMT machine for 20 days and then only clear the balance payment to the opposite party. Even after 20 days also the problem continued. Therefore, the complainant addressed a letter dt:19.06.2015 to the Service Engineer Mr.Rahul Sharma of the opposite party informing that the functioning of the machine was unsatisfactory showing abnormal readings, and the complainant also sent the copies of the said abnormal readings to the Service Engineer for verification. Later the Service Engineer came to the complainant and suggested that perhaps the old computer and UPS may not be sufficient to meet the requirements of the TMT machine. On the suggestion of the Service Engineer, the complainant purchased new computer and new UPS by spending Rs.33,350/- inspite of it machine was not functioning. That on 15.02.2016 one Pankaj Sharma, Service Engineer of the opposite party came to the complainant and tried to rectify the defect in the TMT machine, but in vain. Then he went away by assuring that Senior Service Engineer will come and rectify the defect, and obtained a part payment of Rs.50,000/- and reassuring the complainant that the balance of Rs.50,000/- will not be claimed till the defect is fully rectified. But the Senior Service Engineer also could not rectify the defect that was laying in the TMT machine.

10.  Though the TMT machine supplied by the opposite party, was found defective because of “waveform” was disturbed due to internal error and acquisition box was also replaced, but the defect could not be rectified. Later the opposite party maintained silence even without responding to the phone calls of the complainant. Thus, there is manufacturing defect in the TMT machine supplied to the complainant and that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party having supplied the TMT machine as mentioned in invoice dt:12.03.2015 under Ex.A4, and though it was found defective by the Service Engineers of the opposite party itself, they failed to rectify the defects that were found in the TMT machine. Supply of defective TMT machine and also non-functioning of the said TMT machine since March 2015, non-rectification of the defect by the service engineers of opposite party itself shows that there is manufacturing defect in the TMT machine. Further it is also apparent on record that the Service Engineers, who visited the clinic of the complainant twice or thrice, and who attempted to rectify the defects could not rectify them, later opposite party maintained silence even without answering the phone calls of the complainant, inspite of sending abnormal readings recorded by the TMT machine to the Service Engineers of the opposite party, they could not make any efforts to either rectify the defects or take back the TMT machine. Therefore, it clearly shows that there is, not only manufacturing defect in the TMT machine supplied by the opposite party as shown in Ex.A4, but there is also gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly this point is answered.

11. Point No.(ii):-  In view of our holding on point No.1, and also in view of the complaint averments, evidence affidavit of the complainant coupled with Exs.A1 to A9, it is found that there is un-rectifiable defect is there in the TMT machine, and supply of such defective TMT machine, which was found defective and non-functioning of TMT machine inspite of paying Rs.80,000/- towards part of cost of the machinery and also another sum of Rs.33,350/- for purchasing a new computer and UPS on the advice of the Service Engineer of the opposite party shows the attitude of the opposite party, which clearly caused not only mental agony but disturbed the practice of the complainant.

12.  Since the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.80,000/- as discussed in point No.1, under two cheques and purchased the TMT machine hoping that it will be helpful to his practice in diagnosing the problems of the cardiac patients, the purpose of purchasing TMT machine was not served. Since the complainant paid the part of cost of the TMT machine and taken delivery of the TMT machine, he is a consumer within the meaning of Section-2(i)(d) of C.P.Act, and the opposite party is the service provider / seller of the TMT machine as defined under Section-2(i)(o) of the C.P.Act 1986. Because of the inefficiency of the opposite party in rectifying the defects of the TMT machine and see that it will function properly, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party due to which the complainant suffered hardship and mental agony because of non-functioning of the machinery. Therefore, in our view, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for. Accordingly this point is answered.

13. Point No.(iii):- In view of our holding on points 1 and 2, and since the complainant has established that the opposite party has supplied the TMT machine, which is suffering from manufacturing defect and the opposite party failed to rectify those mistakes and also failed even to replace the said machine. Therefore, the claim of the complainant is appears to be proper and the complaint is to be allowed accordingly.

In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) to the complainant along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e. 12.03.2015 as per Ex.A4 invoice, till realization. That the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and also directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony to the complainant, and also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint. That the opposite party further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.75,000/- (50,000 + 25,000) shall also carry interest at   9% p.a. from the date of the complaint, till realization. The opposite party is at liberty to take back the defective TMT machine supplied to the complainant on complying with this order.               

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 1^st day of December, 2017.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                             

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

 

 

 

   Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1:  Dr. S.R. Gupta (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Original copy of Quotation given by the opposite party to the complainant. Dt: 07.03.2015.
	Served copy of the legal notice got issued by the opposite party through his counsel to the complainant. Dt: 21.02.2017.
	Reply legal notice got issued by the complainant to the opposite party for the legal notice. Dt: 10.03.2017.
	True copy (Duplicate copy) of VAT/Retail cum Excise Invoice issued by opposite party in favour of complainant along with terms and conditions. Dt: 12.03.2015.
	Office copy of reply notice got issued by the complainant to opposite party through his counsel. Dt: 10.03.2017.
	Postal receipt No. EN470943855IN in Original. Dt: 14.03.2017.
	Returned postal cover for receipt No.EN470943855IN (Dt: 14.03.2017) with an endorsement of refusal.
	Postal receipt No. EN473844193IN in Original. Dt: 03.04.2017.
	Returned postal cover for receipt No. EN473844193IN (Dt: 03.04.2017) with an endorsement of refusal.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

-NIL-

 

 

                                                                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                                                                      President

    

     // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

          Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

          

    

   Copies to:- 1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite party.