BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

Dated this the 14^th February 2017

PRESENT

        SRI. RAVISHANKAR         :  HON’BLE PRESIDENT

       SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI        :   HON’BLE MEMBER                                        

COMPLAINT NO.243/2016

        (Admitted on 23.07.2016)

Dr. S.Subramanya Joshi,

ISA No. 2435, KMC No.18190,

Adrasha Hospital, APMC Road,

Puttur Kasaba village, Puttur D.K.

……… Complainant

(Advocate for Complainant by Sri. SM)         

VERSUS

Rajesh Kohli,

No.86, 7^th D Main, 6^th Block,

Koramangal Bangalore,

              Mob:9241838668

                                                                                     ……. Opposite Party

(Opposite Party  : Ex parte)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE MEMBER

SMT. LAVANYA M. RAI

1. 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the opposite party claiming certain reliefs.

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The Complainant is a practicing Anastasia Specialist Doctor in Puttur at Adarsha Hospital.  The Opposite Party introduced himself as identified with supplier of surgical instruments and machineries for many famous hospital.  The complainant placed a proposal before Opposite Party for purchase of machineries required for complainant hospital.  The Opposite Party promised to supply a Multipara Patient Monitar  for a consideration of Rs.1,15,000/ The complainant had sent a sum of Rs.90,000/ on 18.08.2015 as advance consideration and an additional sum of Rs.25,000/ was also paid to the Opposite Party on 10.09.2015 as final settlement through NEFT from the complainant bank account. The Opposite Party had supplied a machine namely- Patient Monitar, Sl.No.2015090801 for a consideration of Rs.1,15,000/  But till today Opposite Party had not handed over the bills to the complainant.  The machine had not been in a working condition ever since the installation.  The complainant had repeatedly contacted Opposite Party through phone call and also SMS and on 20.01.2016 through a registered letter also calling upon the Opposite Party to repair the same or change/ replace the machine supplied by him.  When the complainant repeatedly demanded for replacement of the sub-standard machine, the Opposite Party agreed to replace the machine sent by him within a short period.

During the course of operation if the machine develops any trouble or fault it may endanger the life of the patient.  Hence, the complainant and staff and surgeons in the O.T may suffer mental stress and agony due to the faulty machine supplied by Opposite Party.  Hence the above complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as the Act,) seeking direction from this FORA to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000 with up to date interest at 15% p.a. to the complainant and costs of the proceedings.

2.   Version Notice served to the opposite party by RPAD, inspite of receiving version notice Opposite Party not appeared nor contested the case before this forum.  Hence we have proceeded Ex-parte as against Opposite Party.

III.  In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in above complaint are as under:

1. Whether the Complaint proved that the Opposite Party committed deficiency in service?
2. If so, whether the Complaint is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

          In support of the complainant One Dr. S.Subramanyya Joshi, (CW1) the complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced the documents same has got marked as Ex C1 to C6. 

          We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before the FORA and answered the points are as follows:                  

                     Point No.(i) and (ii): Affirmative.

                     Point No.(iii): As per the final order.

REASONS

IV. POINTS No. (i) and (ii):

 It is undisputed fact that the complainant had intended to purchase surgical instrument from the Opposite Party for consideration amount of Rs.1,15,000/ hence the complainant sent Rs.90,000/ on 18.8.2015 as advance consideration and Rs.25,000/ on 10.9.2015 as final settlement through NEFT from the complainant bank account.  Which is shown in Ex.C1.  After that Opposite Party supplied machine, patient Monitar SL.No.2015090801, but had not handed over the bills to the complainant.  The documents produced along with complaint which clearly disclosed that the complainant purchased the above said monitar  from the Opposite Party by paying Rs.1,15,000/ On the other hand inspite of serving notice to the Opposite Party had not appeared nor represented the case hence placed exparte.  The entire evidence placed by the complainant not contradicted nor controverted by the Opposite Party.  Which requires no further proof. On perusal of Ex.C4 complainant document which reveals that the Opposite Party agreed to replace the machine.  Mere admission of the Opposite Party is sufficient to prove the case of the complaint. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the Opposite Party shall replace the new patient monitar along with warranty by taking back the defective machine (monitar) and also liable to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for inconvenience and harassment caused.  Further liable to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses as such the point No. 1 and 2 answered as affirmative. 

In the result, we pass the following.

ORDER

The complaint is partly allowed. Opposite Party shall replace the new patient monitar along with warranty by taking back the defective machine (monitar) and also directed to pay a sum Rs.10,000/ (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for inconvenience and harassment caused.  Further directed to pay a sum Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses.  Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

In case of failure to pay the above mentioned amount or replace the new one with in stipulated time, the Opposite Party

directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the above said total amount from the date of complaint till the date of payment.

The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties and therefore the file be consigned to record.

(Page No.1 to 6 directly dictated by Member to computer system to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 14^th day of February 2017.)

      MEMBER                                       PRESIDENT

   (SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI)                  (SRI. RAVISHANKAR)

D.K. District Consumer Forum             D.K. District Consumer Forum

Mangalore.                                          Mangalore.

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1: Dr. S.Subramanyya Joshi,

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: Account extract of complainant bank account.

Ex.C2: 20.01.2016: Office copy of the notice.

Ex.C3: Notarized copy of screen short messages.

Ex.C4: 02.08.2016: Letter from Opposite Party.

Ex.C5: 16.04.2016: Office copy of legal notice.

Ex.C6: 26.04.2016: Reply notice by the Opposite Party.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

Nil

Documents Marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:      

Nil

Dated: 14.02.2017.                                       MEMBER