DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.08/2016
Sh. Narottam Sharma SENIOR CITIZEN
160, Ground Floor Kailash Hills 74 YEARS OLD
New Delhi-110062 ….Complainant
Versus
Surgical Specialties
313 LGF Sant Nagar
East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065 ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution :11.01.16 Date of Order : 27.05.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Sh. S.S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
The case of the Complainant, in short, is that the Complainant approached the OP on the recommendation of a mutual friend for buying hearing aids in the month of April, 2015. The OP sent his employee Sh. Umesh and Sh. Muhammad. Izhar, Sales Executive. They explained him the details of hearing aids and suggested that Nitro 301 with 16 channels of Siemens Company will be exactly suitable to him. He got tested his ears in Yavarjung Hospital and OP offered him hearing aids for Rs.35,000/- for both the machines and promised prompt services as and when required and he gave advance cheque for Rs.15,000/- vide cheque No.709979 dated 22.04.15 drawn on Syndicate Bank and within couple of days machines were delivered and simultaneously he paid balance amount of Rs.20,000/- to the OP by means of cheque. The OP’s executive Mr. Izhar kept on trying to fix the machines as trial and error method but he could not hear properly either from distance or directions. He tried 2—3 times on different dates but he could not hear satisfactorily on reasonable sound. He informed the OP and OP promised him to find out a satisfactory solution but the OP did not respond to his telephone calls or emails. The Complainant has stated that neither OP was an agent of Siemens hearing aids nor Mr. Izhar was a qualified Audiologist as the OP’s executive had taken wrong measurement of the ears. As the OP was not responding to his phone calls and emails he contacted Siemens Bangaluru office and they asked him to contact at Delhi Office. He contacted Mr. Manish at Delhi office and he suggested him to contact their authorized agent M/s Adlakha Speech & Hearing Clinic. Mr. Adlakha disclosed him that warranty is not authentic as the OP was not the authorized dealer and he charged Rs.500/- for consultation. He wrote a letter to the Siemens, Bangaluru office expressing his surprise that unauthorized people are dealing with their goods but they informed him that their Delhi counterpart will authenticate and Mr. Manish at Delhi Centre authenticated the sale of Nitro 301 to M/s Hope Enterprises, New Delhi. He visited Mr. Manish at Siemens, Delhi office twice and he fixed the machine and revealed that the machine supplied is not of 16 channels but of 8 channels. Hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP for not providing the proper machine. The Complainant has prayed as under:
- Direct the OP to provide proper machine of 16 channels and or in the alternative to refund his money back.
Shri Harjit Singh, Prop. of OP attended the proceedings on 23.02.2016 and stated that they will change the instrument and the Complainant became ready to pay additional amount if required to be paid. Matter was adjourned to 4.3.2016. No one appeared on behalf of the OP on 04.03.16. OP was proceeded exparte vide order dated 28.03.16.
Affidavit in evidence has been filed by the complainant.
We have heard the Complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Averments made in the complaint and evidence led by the Complainant have remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. Hence there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the Complainant. The OP was ready to change the instrument on 23.02.16 but the OP did not fulfill his promise. Therefore, we hold the OP is guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
We allow the complaint and direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs. 35,000/- to the Complainant alongwith 6% interest from the date of its purchase till realization.
The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP shall become liable to pay Rs.35000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase till its realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(S. S. Fonia) (Naina Bakshi) (N. K. Goel)
Member Member President
Announced on 27.05.2016
Case No. 8/2016
27.5.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is allowed. OP is directed to pay to refund the amount of Rs. 35,000/- to the Complainant alongwith 6% interest from the date of its purchase till realization. The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP shall become liable to pay Rs.35000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase till its realization. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(S. S. Fonia) (Naina Bakshi) (N. K. Goel)
Member Member President
