IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/131/2018
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
27.07.18 03.08.18 27.06.22
Complainant: Md. Abdul Karim
S/o Late Md. Golam Hossain, the Proprietor of Neway
Diagnostic & Polyclinic of New-Hospital Road,
P.O. & P.S. Beldanga,
Dist- Murshidabad
-Vs-
Opposite Party: ( 1) Surojit Aditya Proprietor of M/S Intermedics
Of BD-404, Salt Lake, Sector-1
Kolkata-700064
(2) Manager Edan Medical India Pvt Ltd
Of 207, New Delhi House
27, Barakhama Road
New Delhi-110001
(3) The Branch Manager Syndicate Bank,
Opp. Sirish Chandra Vidyapith
Banschatar, P.O. Beldanga
Dist- Murshidabad, Pin-742133 (W.B.)
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Md Saddam Hossain
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 : P. Banerjee
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das………………………….......President.
Sri. Subir Sinha Ray……………………………….Member.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay, Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Md. Abdul Karim (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Surojit Aditya, Proprietor of M/S Intermedics and others (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The brief fact of the case is that the complainant after getting the registration certificate vide Registered No. CM-MSD/USG-PNDT/133 issued by C.M.O.H. Murshidabad in order to purchase Chison Model I3 Colour Doppler System Machine contacted with O.P. No. 1 who issued quotation on 20.03.2017 mentioning “Digital Trolley Based Ultrasound Colour Doppler System Model I3, Makes on Chison Supplied with 01 Convex Probe, 02 Linear Probe, Unit Price of Rs. 12,468,75/- including vat”.
As per agreement between the parties held on 20.03.2017 the O.P. No. 1 issued a Purchase Order agreement form for the said machine amounting Rs. 10,07,500/- including vat. The complainant has paid Rs. 1, 07,500/- to the O.P. on 20.03.2017 as advanced for the said machine through cheque No. 192784 dated 20.03.2017 of State Bank of India thereafter on 30.05.2017 the complainant has paid Rs. 60,000/- through cheque No. 644333 of State Bank of India. The complainant subsequently paid Rs. 10,50,000/- to the Opposite Party No. 1 through RTGS dated 18.09.2017 and the money receipt had been issued by the O.P. No. 1 in these respect. After receiving total amount of Rs. 12,17,500/- the Opposite Party No. 1 on 22nd December, 2017 informed to the Branch Manager Syndicate Bank Banschatar Branch that the O.P. No. 1 shall make delivery EDAN makes U2 with two Probes machine to the complaint instead of supplying Chison Makes of I3 with two Probes machine. Thereafter on 19.02.2018 the O.P. No. 1 delivered Ultra Sonography Colour Doppler System, Model U2 Machine which is low and inferior quality instead of Chison Model I3 Colour Doppler System Machine and that was installed on 25.02.2018 at Neway Diagnostic and Ployclinic of New Hospital Road P.O. & P.S. Beldanga Dist: Murshidabad. After purchase and installation of the said machine the complainant has observed that the O.P. has delivered a defective , low and inferior quality machine whose actual price is Rs. 6 lacs approx and the said machine does not work properly from very beginning and frequently it remains out of order. From the said machine the print of USG cannot be obtained properly from the very beginning and the defective print is obtained through Pen drive and no direct print is made for which actual disease of the patients cannot be diagnosed and no actual report is received. The complainant has intimated the matter through mail and also several times over telephone and also by writing for changing the machine and to provide him the actual machine as per their contact but the Opposite Party No. 1 or 2 neither replaced the defective machine nor they returned the price of the machine paid by the complainant. Finding No other alternative the complainant filed this instant case praying for replacement of the defective machine or refund the sum of Rs. 12,17,500/- along with compensation and cost for mental pain and agony.
Defence Case
After service of the notice O.P. No. 1 has not turned up to controvert the plea of the complainant for the reason best known to him. So, the case proceed ex-parte against O.P. No. 1.
O.P. No. 2 and 3 appeared by filing written version after service of notice.
O.P. No. 2 in the written version stated that purchase order of the Ultra Sonography Colour Doppler System Machine was placed by the complainant to O.P. No. 1 and also pre-sales discussion and financial negotiations were between them. O.P. No. 2 being the Manufacturer ED INSTRUMENTS INC and its Indian Service provider is nowhere involved till the supply of the equipment. The complainant had given purchase order to O.P. No. 1 for Digital Trolley Based Ultrasound Colour Doppler System Model I3 Make Chison. The O.P. no. 2 was never informed by the complainant or by the O.P. No. 1. The complainant agreed to accept the delivery of Digital Trolley Based Ultrasound Colour Doppler System Model U2 Make Edan Instruments Inc instead of Model I3 Make Chison from O.P. No. 1. Being the service provider the O.P. No. 2 is nowhere involved till the supply of the equipment. Without knowing any financial terms between complainant and O.P. No. 1 on good faith without any objection of the complainant the O.P. No. 2 had installed and demonstrate Brand New Digital Trolley Based Ultrasond Colour Doppler System Make U2 Make Edan Instruments Inc at complainant’s site i.e., Newway Diagnostic & Polyclinic, New Hospital Road, P.O. & P.S. Beldanga, District- Murhsidabad on 25.02.2018 with proper demonstration. And 06.03.2018 O.P. No. 2 received first call from complainant for non-working of machine and on subsequent visit of service engineer of respondent no. 2 found that machine is working satisfactorily and properly. On 12.03.2018, on 15.05.2018, on 24.07.2018 and on 10.11.2018 similar calls of complaints for non-working of machine was received by the O.P. No. 2 wherein every time service engineer of O.P. No. 2 found no problem in the machine and the complainant is using it to its maximum capacity since installation.
So there is no deficiency of service on the part of O.P. No. 2 and as such the case is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. No. 2.
The O.P. No. 3 in the written version stated that involvement of O.P. No. 3 is nothing in purchase and installation of the said machine except the complainant make RTGS from his own account which is lying with this Bank. So, there is no deficiency of service in their part and the O.P. No. 3 be expunged and exempted from this petition for the ends of justice.
On the basis of the complaint and the written versions the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
1. Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
Point no.1 & 2
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion. Undoubtedly the complainant has paid Rs. 12,17,500/- on different occasions from 20.03.2017 to 22.12.2017 for purchase of machine Chison Model I3 Colour Doppler System Machine from the O.P. No. 1 as per agreement between them for the purpose of earning his livelihood for self employment on getting registration certificate vide registered no. CM-MSD/USG-PNDT/133 issued by appropriate authority.
The complainant has paid Rs. 1, 07,500/- to the O.P. on 20.03.2017 as advanced for the said machine through cheque No. 192784 dated 20.03.2017 of State Bank of India thereafter on 30.05.2017 the complainant has paid Rs. 60,000/-through cheque No. 644333 of State Bank of India. The complainant subsequently paid Rs. 10,50,000/- to the Opposite Party No. 1 through RTGS dated 18.09.2017 and the money receipt had been issued by the O.P. No. 1 in these respect. After receiving total of Rs. 12,17,500/- the O.P. No. 1 on 19.02.2018 delivered the machine of Ultra Sonography Colour Doppler System, Model U2 instead of Chison Model I3 Colour Doppler System Machine to the complainant and on 25.02.2018 the O.P. No. 2 installed the said inferior quality machine at Neway Diagnostic & Polyclinic of New Hospital Road P.O. & P.S. Beldanga, Dist: Murshidabad in presence of the complainant and the Xerox copy of satisfactorily installation cum demonstration report was duly signed and stamped by the complainant is attached with the W/V of the O.P. No. 2. It is also evident from the record that as and when complainant called the O.P. No. 2for non-working of machine each and every time the service engineer attended the call and service report of proper functioning of the said Sonography machine which is signed by the complainant is also attached with W/V.
O.P. No. 1 delivered the machine of Ultra Sonography Colour Doppler System, Model U2 instead of Chison Model I3 Colour Doppler System Machine on 19.02.2018 and the same was installed on 25.02.2018 at Neway Diagnostic & Polyclinic of New Hospital Road P.O. & P.S. Beldanga, Dist: Murshidabad in presence of the complainant. The machine was delivered on 19.02.2018 by the complainant and installed on 25.02.2018 by the O.P. No. 2. So, there was 7 days from the delivery of the machine to installation. The complainant has received enough time for thinking and at that very moment the complainant has not raised any objection for installation of the new machine which was not as per his order. After installation and demonstration the complainant has signed the service report as per his satisfaction. So, it is clear from the documents that the complainant has knowingly accepted the machine.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents filed before us and argument advanced by the Ld. Advocate for the complainant and reason recorded above we are of the view that complainant getting ample opportunity to change the sonography machine supplied by the O.P. No. 1 before installation but he has not done so. At this point of time he cannot raise any objection.
It is also clear as and when complainant called O.P. No. 2 for non-functioning of the Sonography Machine the O.P. No. 2 attended the calls and each and every time he has handed over the machine to the complainant on full satisfaction so we find no deficiency on the part as O.P. NO. 2.
O.P. No. 3 who is only the person through which petitioner had made RTGS in this case O.P. No. 3 does not have any responsibility as there is no complaint regarding the transaction of bank.
In this circumstances complainant has failed to prove his case and the same is liable to be dismissed but without cost.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 27.07.2018 and admitted on 03.08.2019. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act, 1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case fails.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the instant complaint case No. CC/131/2018 be and same is dismissed on contest against the OP No. 2 & 3 and dismissed ex-parte against O.P. No. 1 but without any order as to costs.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
