Haryana

Ambala

CC/149/2019

Sagar Computerized Laboratory - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

D.S. Punia

07 Feb 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.         :  149 of 2019

                                                          Date of Institution           : 01.05.2019

                                                          Date of decision     :  07.02.2020.

 

Sagar Computerized Laboratory Near Agarsen Chowk Ambala Road, Naraingarh through its proprietor Krishan Kumar son of Sh. Vidya Sagar, resident of village Nagawan, PO Badagaon, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

VERSUS

 

1.  The Managing Director, CPC Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office: 9 & 10, Gokul Towers, No.9, V-Floor, C.P. Ramaswamy Road, Alwarpet, Chennai, 600018.

2.  The Branch Head/Manager/CPC Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, Office Address: No.28, Ist floor, VP Block, DDA Market, Pitampura New Delhi 110088.

 

     ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Ms. Neena Sandhu,  President.

                   Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.          

                            

Present:       Shri D.S. Punia, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Ms. Suksham Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for OPs.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of  following directions to them:-

1. To replace the machine along with its necessary parts with new one or to refund Rs.5,67,000/- i.e. the cost of the machine, along with interest @ 18% per annum.
2. To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.33,000/- as litigations expenses. 

 

382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that in the month of March, 2017, complainant got sanctioned a loan of Rs.5 lakh from the Syndicate Bank, Branch Naraingarh and purchased a machine TurboChem 100 (fully Automated Biochemistry Analyzer) for conducting laboratory tests, from the OPs. Order was given on 25.03.2017 and the machine was delivered by the OPs, at the address mentioned in the bill dated 27.03.2017. On 10.04.2017, the Engineer of OP company Sh. Pawan Kumar Bishnoi, came to Naraingarh, to install the machine. He issued warranty registration card in the name of Sagar Computerized Lab., having validity till 29.03.2019. Just after 3 months of installation of the machine, it started creating problem and the complainant contacted the company. The engineer of the company came and repaired the machine and said that now it will not create any problem. On 25.10.2017, the machine again started creating problem and the complaint was made to the OP company, but . the representatives of the company came to attend the complaint on 25.12.2017, i.e. after about two months from the date of lodging of the complaint and replaced the defected part with used/old part. Complainant raised the objection that the defective part should have been replaced with the new one. Even after replacement of the defected part, the machine did not work properly and on 27.02.2018, it stopped working. After 3-4 days, the representatives of the company, who were of technical background, came and opened the machine, then complainant asked them, how can they repair the machine, when they have no knowledge about it. On 27.06.2018, again complaint was made and the machine was repaired on the very same day by the engineer of the company, but on the very next day the machine stopped working again. On 28.08.2018, for the third time complaint was made to the OPs and their engineer came to repair the machine and reported that “regulatory control ailing Machine Uric Acids, ACT, AST and glucose icam 100 reagents were not giving proper results”. On 25.09.2018, complaint was made in this regard to the OPs and also informed the Engineer telephonically to repair the machine, but nothing was done and ultimately, an e-mail was sent to the company. On 31.10.2018, again the complaint was made to the OPs and their Engineer came on 19.11.2018, to check/repair the machine and in the service report, in the column of problem, had reported that ‘instrument not turning on’ and in the column of technical findings, had reported that the machine had “SMPS problem”. On 30.11.2018, the Engineer of the company again visited to repair the machine and in the column of action taken, had mentioned that “check all the voltages. Main supply voltage is OK but UPS O/P Voltage is not good”. In the column of customer comments, the complainant had written that there was no problem of voltage. On 12.12.2018, the Engineer of the company came to sought out the problem and in the column of problem, reported that ‘communication problem observed’ and in the column action taken, reported that ‘change the EZ 80 board of TC 100 instrument. After that check with the laptop, having TC 100 software. Now, it is working. Communication problem is resolved but the PC of the machine is not working, which was seen on 30.11.2018, on the previous visit, I report the power supply problem, but actually the problem is with the multi-meter. Checked the voltage and it is fine’. Thereafter, in the column of customer comments,  complainant had mentioned that “he is not satisfied with the service and company policies, because the machine which was supplied to him was having so many problems and from the very beginning of its installation in his lab and the engineers/technicians who came to repair/check the machine were having defective parts/checking instruments with them as evident from the service report dated 12.12.2018, wherein the Engineer of the Company had stated that he was having problem with the multi-meter”.                  E-mails dated 08.10.2018, 14.11.2018, 17.11.2018 were sent to the OPs with regard to supply of defective machine. Thereafter, on 13.12.2018, R.Suraj Kumar, Head Customer Support sent an E-mail, consisting    wrong facts, as he was not even aware that as to when the parts                of machine were replaced by the OPs. The Engineer of the OPs said that some parts were not covered under the warranty, whereas this fact was not mentioned in the warranty registration card issued by the OPs. The parcel containing the defective spare parts of Turbochem-100 was sent to CPC Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. Chennai for repair, but the said spare parts have not been received back and the machine is lying idle and the complainant is suffering huge financial loss of more than Rs.5,000/- per day. A legal notice was also served upon the OPs, but of no avail. By not repairing the machine, OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                 Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, concealment of material facts, cause of action, territorial jurisdiction. On merits, it is stated that OPs have no knowledge with regard to loan taken by the complainant. The standard warranty for the product purchased by the complainant was for one year, but the complainant had opted to take the extended warranty of another one year upon an undertaking that he will also purchase the reagents (compounds added to the system to cause chemical reaction) with minimum of Rs.1.5 lakhs per annum, wherein it was well told and admitted by the complainant that lamps and tetlon will not be considered under value. On 27.07.2017, OPs received a call from the complainant regarding persistence of problem in the machine. The Engineer of the OPs visited the complainant and on inspection of the machine it was found that the machine was working perfectly, but the complainant was not having proper knowledge of conducting tests in the machine and its application. The Engineer guided the complainant regarding use of various applications for conducting tests and extract results. He also explained the complainant that the PH quality of water has to be within the acceptable limits and keeping calibrators and quality controls properly in frozen temperature, which is required to be done for conducting tests in all diagnostics machine of whatever category and a trained technician is presumed to be well aware of. He also instructed the complainant to keep the machine in a clean, dust free environment, duly installed with an air-conditioner, for optimum cooling, provide stabilized voltage which would help to obtain best results from the machine. Complainant admitted the same and had given his satisfaction on the same. On receiving the complaint on 08.12.2017, the Engineer of the OPs visited the complainant and on inspection, found that the machine was not kept in a dust free environment, proper room temperature was not provided as there was no working Air Conditioner, not given the recommended use of reagents etc., due to which the “Probe Z mechanism” part of machine became defective. The said part become defective due to mis handling by the complainant, but as a goodwill gesture, the OPs agreed to replace the same, free of cost. However, at that time the brand new spare parts of the machine was not available with the OPs, therefore with the consent of complainant, its Engineer replaced the defective part with the used/old part temporarily, till the availability of  new part and the machine started working perfectly. After replacement of the part, no problem persisted in the machine and it worked perfectly. However, on availability of new spare part, Engineer went to replace the same, but the complainant did not allow him to replace the same and started demanding a new machine instead of the part, which was not possible as per the terms and conditions of the OPs. The Senior Engineer, Mr. Pawan approached the complainant to attend the complaint dated 27.02.2018, and after inspection found that there was an issue in the probe while disposing sample, because of alignment problem and the same was only due to mishandling of machine. Engineer also observed that the PH quality of water being used by the complainant was not of good quality and with a minor alignment, the machine started working perfectly. The complaint was attended by Senior Engineer of Company and not by a non-technical person as alleged in the complaint. It is further stated that as and when a complaint was received by the OPs, an Engineer was sent immediately to redress the same. On 27.06.2018, the Engineer from New Delhi, Mr. Rohit Kumar Shukla went to inspect the machine. On inspection, but cuvette carrier were found struck at the start of shuttle. The machine was kept very dirty and dusty, and the Engineer firstly cleaned the machine, encoder & its sensor and observed that the felt was not present at its position, due to mishandling. The engineer fixed the same and cleaned all the interior and exterior parts of instrument and it started working perfectly, on supply of proper voltage. The complainant was advised to keep the machine clear, maintain the voltage supply, to keep the machine run proper and smoothly. In the month of August, 2018 again a complaint was received and same was attended by Mr. Arun Parkash , Senior Engineer from Chennai, who visited the Sagar Laboratory, Naraingarh on the same day and found that the test samples were not giving proper results because the test samples were not being used in right proportion. The machine was not giving proper results because preanalytical research was not done properly and the water put in the machine was not of good quality. On 19.11.2018, the Engineer inspected the machine and felt that it has SMPS problem and thus he requested the company office at Chennai to send the SMPS part and informed the complainant to wait, till the part is received. However, on receipt of the same, on 30.11.2018, Engineer visited the complainant and tried to start the machine with the new SMPS part, but the machine did not start and he observed that there was no problem with the SMPS part and the problem is due to non supply of proper voltage. The Engineer also found that PC was not working properly because of improper supply of voltage from the UPS, despite that complainant pressurized the said Engineer to replace the machine, but he flatly refused.  Thereafter, it was found that the machine did not start with PC installed with the machine. The Engineer installed the software in Laptop of the complainant and tried to start the machine with the help of laptop and the machine started functioning perfectly. It was found that the CPU of the machine became defective, due to non supply of proper voltage. The Engineer told the complainant to get replaced the computer attached with the machine on its own as the same was not covered under warranty, being not a part of machine, but the complainant started pressurizing the Engineer to replace the PC, free of costs, which was not possible as per the terms and conditions. OPs have duly attended and resolved all the concerns of the complainant, without any delay. As such OPs were not deficient in providing service and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint along with costs.

3.                Complainant along with counsel tendered his affidavit as Annexure CA alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-18 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs tendered affidavit of Shri T.K. Prasanth, Vice President (Marketing Exports) as Annexure OP-A alongwith document Annexure OP1 to OP14 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

4.                We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                Admittedly, the complainant purchased the machine in question worth Rs.5,67,000/- from the OPs vide invoice dated 27.03.2017, Annexure C-1. From the warranty registration card, Annexure C-2/OP-4, it is evident that the OPs had gave warranty upto 29.03.2019. The Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the machine in question started giving problem immediately after its installation. The OPs replaced the defective part with the old/used part. In spite of replacement of the defective part, machine was not working properly and ultimately it stopped working. The Ld. counsel for the OPs argued that there was no problem in the machine and it got defective due to fluctuation/ non supply of proper voltage. However, as a goodwill gesture OPs replaced the defective part. Since, the new spare part was not readily available at that time and with the consent of the complainant, the Engineer of the OPs replaced the said part with the used/old part temporarily with the assurance that the old part will be replaced immediately on availability of the new part. On availability of the new part, the Engineer went to replace the old/used part, but the complainant did not allow him to replace the same. However, there is no cogent proof in this regard. It is not disputed that the machine in question got defected during warranty. Thus, it was the duty of the OPs to set the machine right either by repairing or replacing the defective part(s), free of costs. As such, we deem it fit that the OPs shall replace the old/used part of the machine with the new one and to set the machine right either by repairing or replacing the defective part(s), free of costs. The OPs shall also compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment caused to him alongwith litigation expenses.

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to replace the old/used part of machine with the new one and to set the machine right either by repairing or replacing the defective part(s), free of costs. The OPs shall also compensate the complainant by paying a lump sum amount of Rs.8,000/- for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant alongwith litigation expenses. The OPs shall comply with the aforesaid order, within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :07.02.2020

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

           Member                            Member                            President