STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Appeal No.1738 of 2008)

                                                                   Date of Institution: 29.08.2008

                                                                   Date of Decision  : 31.01.2011

Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh through its Director Principal.

……Appellant/Complainant.

V e r s u s

M/s Anupam Metals, 275, Phase IX, Industrial Area, through its Proprietor Sh. Amardeep Sharma.

              ....Respondent/OP.

BEFORE:            MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER.

                        S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:            Sh. Jatinder Singh, D.D.A for the appellant.

                        Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH  MAHAL, MEMBER.

1                  This appeal under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the order dated 23.6.2008 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) vide which the complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed.

2                  Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that after accepting the tender of OP i.e. M/s Anupam Metals, it placed a purchase order dated 20.1.2003 (Annexure C-3) with the OP, who supplied 151 beds vide bill No.151 dated 24.3.2003 for Rs.7,06,680/- (Annexure C-4) and the remaining 164 beds were supplied vide bill No.171 dated 20.5.2003 for Rs.7,67,520/- (Annexure C-5). It was alleged that soon after the purchase of these beds, the complainant started receiving complaints from various sections vide Annexures C-6/1 to C-6/28 about the defects and inferior quality of the beds Thereafter, the complainant wrote to the OP various letters dated 26.7.2004, 23.9.2004, 23.11.2004 and 19.1.2005 (Annexures C-7/1 to C-7/4) for repairing the defects in the beds, which seemed to be manufacturing and operational one. It was further alleged that on a number of occasions, the OP promised to undertake the repair work of the beds meticulously and service engineer was also sent to attend the complaints but no serious efforts were made to carry out the necessary repair work in order to make the operation and handling of the beds free from the existing defects. As per the complainant, OP got repaired some of the defective beds vide Annexures C-9/1 to C-9/3. It was alleged that inspite of guarantee clause in the purchase order Annexure C-3, no replacement of the defective beds was ever done by the OP. It was next alleged that in order to resolve the entire controversy in an amicable manner, the complainant constituted a Committee to look into the matter in which the proprietor of the OP was also called. Thereafter, the complainant vide letter dated 28.2.2006 (Annexure C-11) informed the OP that rates of annual maintenance contract quoted by the OP are highly unreasonable and fresh rates be supplied but the OP vide reply dated 10.5.2006 (Annexure C-12) failed to give any suitable rates. It was alleged that the complainant is continuously suffering a lot of humiliation and harassment in the hands of its patients as the beds supplied by the OP are highly defective and un-operational, which are the basic needs in administering medical aid to the patients. Alleging that the beds supplied were having manufacturing defects and there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the present complaint.

3                  OP in its written statement, besides taking various preliminary objection particularly as regards the complaint being barred by time admitted the sale of the alleged beds by it to the complainant. It was pleaded that the complainant had issued completion and appreciation letter to the OP for supplying beds  and 40 patient trolleys in the year 2005 being of better quality in various newspapers. It was further asserted that the supply of beds was accepted by the complainant after inspection and now at this stage, the complainant cannot turn around to say that the beds were of inferior quality. As per the OP, the defects, if any, occurred in the beds were due to mishandling and misuse of the beds by the concerned staff of the complainant.

4                  The parties were given opportunity to lead evidence in support of their contentions.

5                  After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide the impugned order dated 23.6.2008 as already mentioned in the opening para of the judgment.

6                  The complainant has challenged the impugned order through this appeal.

7.                 We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

8.                 Annexure C-3 is the order for the supply of 315 number of hospital beds at the rate of Rs.4,500/- each and the beds were to be supplied within a period of 60 days. 151 beds were supplied on 24.3.2003 and the remaining 164 on 20.5.2003. It is mentioned in Annexure C-3 that there is a guarantee of two years for any manufacturing defect.  The said period, therefore, expired on 19.5.2005. After the said date, there would be no guarantee and the OP would not be liable to repair the beds free of charge. The manufacturing defects accruing before 19.5.2005 were liable to be corrected by the OP and if they did not, a complaint to that effect could be filed by 19.5.2007. The present complaint was, however, filed on 13.7.2007 and the same is barred by time.

9                  The contention of the complainant is that a number of defects were reported in the beds and the complaints are Annexures C-6/1 to C-6/28. It is argued that subsequently, a meeting was held on 28.2.2006 in which the OP admitted that the beds supplied by him were inferior in quality and were suffering from manufacturing defects and therefore, the period of limitation would start from that date. We do not find any merit in this argument. The minutes of meeting (Annexure C-11) are not signed by the OP. There is no such document to suggest if the OP ever admitted any defect in the beds. The period of limitation, therefore, cannot be started afresh from Annexure C-11 especially when the warranty period had already expired.

10                The supply order (Annexure C-3) records Condition No.3 that the material (i.e. the hospital beds) should be accepted after ensuring that the terms and conditions as given overleaf have been complied with by the firm. Condition No.6 thereof required that article supplied would be accepted after inspection of the stores and after finding them according to their requirement/tender specifications mentioned in the technical bid/ catalogue/brochure. The specifications for the hospital beds were enclosed with this letter. There is no dispute about it that when the beds were supplied on 24.3.2003 and 20.5.2003, the same were inspected and accepted by the complainant and were put to use. The OP has produced a news item appearing in the ‘Chandigarh Tribune’ Monday 24.11.2003, which has been reproduced by the learned District Forum in Para No.10 of the impugned order reproducing the statement of Dr. Raj Bahadur who was then Medical Superintendent of the complainant to the effect that they saved an amount of Rs.15 Lacs in purchasing the hospital beds from the OP because his rates were half that of the rates quoted by other manufacturers. It was mentioned that the beds supplied by the OP were not only cheaper but also of better quality. It is therefore, a false assertion in the complaint now made after 4 years of the purchase that the beds are of inferior quality or that the same were defective.

11.               The quality of the beds was so satisfactory that approximately 16 months later, the complainant wrote another letter dated 14.6.2004 to supply beds again to the complainant at the previous cost of Rs.4,500/- each. Through this letter, the complainant had requested the OP to extend up to 30.11.2004 the validity of rates of his tender submitted earlier. Vide a letter dated 13.12.2004, the OP was again requested to submit the sample of the hospital bed, which was submitted on 3.1.2005. The OP, however, did not agree to the previous rates on the ground that the steel prices had increased by about 70 Paise. Not only this, about two years later, another order was placed on the OP for supply of 40 patient trolleys to the same hospital vide order dated 20.12.2004. The complainant also asked the OP to submit comprehensive Annual Maintenance Contract rates, which were supplied by the OP vide his letter dated 6.10.2005. In view of this correspondence, it becomes clear that the complainant was fully satisfied with the hospital beds supplied by the OP and there was no manufacturing defect in the same. They were rather giving him a contract for annual maintenance; asking him to supply more beds of the same quality and purchasing patient trolleys from him. If OP had supplied beds of inferior quality, the question of asking him to remain their supplier for the above mentioned articles did not arise.

12.               When the case was taken up before the Lok Adalat on 3.8.2009, both the parties agreed that a report be obtained from the Research Planning and Development Wing of the Panjab Engineering College (University of Technology), Sector 12, Chandigarh as to whether the beds correspond to the specification/sample already approved by the authorities of the Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh.  The beds supplied by the OP along with sample bed were sent to the said College.  The parties also deposited the fees i.e. Rs.30,000/- plus service tax with the College  in equal share i.e. Rs.16545/-. After inspection a report dated 8.12.2009 now marked as C-13 was received to the effect that the beds supplied by the OP and the sample bed have the same features.  When the case was taken up for arguments on 27.1.2010 the learned District Attorney for the appellant pointed out that the Panjab Engineering College has not touched the beds and had only reported from the point of dimensions i.e. length, width, height, gauge  and thickness etc. His contention was that the steel used in the beds does not confirm to the standards of M.S. Steel on which the beds were to be manufactured. The Panjab Engineering College was again requested to submit a report in that respect also.  After examining the beds again a report now marked C-14 along with the enclosures Annexure C-15 and C-16 was received from the College to the effect that the steel used for test bed and sample bed was of good quality and M.S. Steel.  A conjoint reading of both these reports show that not only the supplied beds were of the specifications corresponding to the sample bed but the steel used was also of good quality.  No defect whatsoever could be found in the beds supplied by the OP. In fact the complainant had accepted these beds after inspection when they found that the beds were not only as per the specifications supplied vide sample bed but were of better quality and cheaper than the beds to be supplied by other manufacturers in the markets.  The complainant on the other hand has not been able to produce any evidence to suggest any defect in the beds. 

13                The learned counsel for the OP has argued that in fact thereafter, the atmosphere in the hospital changed and corruption raised its head. There is no denying the fact that for every supply, the OP was submitting not only sample of the article to be supplied but earnest money also. The supply order (Annexure C-3) shows that EMD was to be kept as security money during the guarantee period only, which was two years. However, even after the expiry of the said period, the security money was not refunded to the OP. He had also submitted the sample of multipurpose chair with arms and another sample of hospital bed, IV stand, S.S. Kick and Mayo stand, none of which was returned to him. The complainant wrote a letter dated 6.10.2005 for the return of the multipurpose chair with arms, hospital bed given as sample and for the refund of the earnest money. He also issued another letter for the refund of the sample IV stand, S.S Kick and Mayo stand. Through another letter of the same date, he requested for the refund of three seater chair set and the bed table. The OP had in fact filed a complaint against one Baljeet Singh who refused to return the same and was demanding 2% commission for total supply order and had misbehaved with the OP. On the asking of the complainant, an affidavit dated 15.5.2003 was submitted by the OP. However, there is nothing produced by the complainant on file to suggest if any action was taken on the said complaint. Rather the complainant started harassing the OP by alleging manufacturing defect in the beds and withholding the samples and the earnest money. We find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the OP that the complaint filed by the OP appears to be sole cause for filing the present complaint alleging manufacturing defect in the beds though there was none. The complainant in fact did not stop demanding the return of the samples submitted and the refund of the earnest money deposited by him regarding which letters dated 17.11.2005, 20.2.2006, 18.4.2006 and 10.5.2006, were written by him. This complaint appears to have been filed simply to shut his mouth, otherwise, we do not find any manufacturing defect or deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

14.               The complainant has produced certain letters (Annexures C-6/1 to C-6/28) showing that some of the beds supplied by the OP became defective. The matter was reported to the OP and the same were repaired without any difficulty and without charging anything from the complainant. The learned counsel for the OP argued that these beds were not only being mishandled by the staff but the defects were being created when there existed none. Otherwise also, due to natural wear and tear such like minor defects were possible. The OP had written a letter (Annexure C-8) dated 24.1.2005 asking the Medical Superintendent of the complainant for cooperation so that beds requiring repair were indicated and the same were supplied at the ground floor. He even asked for the replacing of wheels and rubber parts to which the guarantee did not apply and was ready to complete the work without any delay. We, therefore, cannot attribute any deficiency in service on account of the said defects.

15.               It is argued by the learned counsel for the OP that not only that they supplied the beds of a better quality and even at half rates than the other manufacturers supplying the beds but they were also ready to repair 31 of the beds at a nominal cost. We took up the case in the Lok Adalat and made efforts for bringing about a compromise to get the beds repaired at nominal cost and even some of the beds to be got repaired free of cost provided the complainant return the samples deposited by the OP and refund the security, which the complainant was withholding without any cause. However, the adamant attitude of the complainant’s and their refusal to return the samples and security amount became a hindrance and the matter could not be resolved amicably.

16.               In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal, the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is perfectly legal and valid and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the appeal with litigation costs of Rs.10,000/-. The appellant shall also pay to the OP/respondent Rs.16545/- deposited by them with the Punjab Engineering College (University of Technology), Sector 12, Chandigarh as charges for examining the beds.

17.               Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

31^st January 2011.

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Ad/-

STATE COMMISSION

(Appeal No.1738 of 2008)

Argued by:            Sh. Jatinder Singh, A.D.A for the appellant.

                        Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent.

Dated the 31^st day of January, 2011.

ORDER

                    Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal has been dismissed with litigation costs of Rs.10,000/-.

(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL)                                  (NEENA SANDHU)    

                MEMBER                                      PRESIDING MEMBER