1. Neena Rani Gupta 2. Sh B.S Mehndiratta 3. Sh Sarat Chanderl
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.117/13.08.2008 Decided on : 16.10.2008 Dr.Amrit Paul Bansal M.D.(Path.) Prop. M/s Paul Computerized Laboratory, Opposite Civil Hospital, Mansa, Tehsil and District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.The General Manager (Marketing), The Managing Director, Trivitron Diagnostics Pvt.Ltd. Trivitron Spathgiri Bhawan No.15, 1st Floor, IV street, Abrahampuram, Chennai. 2.The Regional Manager, Trivitron Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. B-1, A-12, 2nd Floor, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi. 3.Ajay Kumar Jassal, C/o Mr.Preetam Pal, Flat No.1720, MIG Flats, Sector 39-B, Chandigarh. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.Sunil Kumar Bansal, counsel for the complainant. Opposite Parties exparte. Before: Sh.B.S.Mehandiratta, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: B.S.Mehandiratta, President: This order disposes of a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the 'Act') by Dr.Amrit Paul Bansal, the complainant. He seeks the replacement of the Trivitron Medical Analyzer (Labmate-20) (for short the 'Analyzer'), along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental and physical harassment with Contd........2 : 2 : interest @ 18% per annum from the date of invoice of the Analyzer till the date of realization with costs. In the alternate refund of the invoice amount of the Analyzer to the tune of Rs.1,55,000/- with compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for mental and physical harassment with interest @ 18% per annum is sought. 2. The gist of the grievances of the complainant is that he is M.D.(Path.) and is doing the business of clinical examinations under the name and style of M/s Paul Computerized Laboratory of which he is the sole proprietor. For this business he purchased the Analyzer with standard accessories No.061216D30 vide invoice No.PDY-027 dated 21.09.2007 for a value of Rs.1,55,000/- through OP No.3. The Analyzer was manufactured and marketed by OPs No.1 and 2. The warranty was for electronics and mechanical parts of the Analyzer only for a period of one year from the date of installation thereof. Just after installation, the complainant observed that the Analyzer was not functioning properly, as per specifications of the Company. He sent messages through E-mail and other sources to the opposite parties bringing to their notice the improper functioning of the Analyzer. Officials/Engineers of the opposite parties visited the premises of the complainant and checked the Analyzer. They admitted that there were non removable manufacturing defects in the Analyzer. They could not solve the defect in the Analyzer. Ultimately, the opposite parties vide their letter dated 2.7.2008 declared that there was manufacturing defect in the Analyzer and made promises/admission to replace the Analyzer with a fresh one on or before 20.07.2008. Thereafter despite contact by the complainant, the opposite parties have failed and refused to replace the Analyzer with a fresh one. The engineers/officials of the opposite parties gave the opinion that the lamp used in the Analyzer was defective because supply of 12 watt had been given to the 6 watt lamp due to which the lamp used to fuse frequently and due to that the printer used to feed wrong information to the output instrument/printer resulting in Contd........3 : 3 : incorrect and unfounded reports. This also resulted in giving of wrong prescriptions to the patients by the doctors based on the wrong reports produced by the Analyzer. It caused loss of reputation to the business of the complainant. The complainant had to obtain loan from the bank for purchasing the Analyzer. On account of non payment of installments, he is suffering financial loss as the loan amount is increasing day by day. The financial out turn from the Analyzer has been nil. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties through registered cover on 14.08.2008. The next date fixed in the complaint was 23.09.2008. On that date none out of the opposite parties put in appearance despite the fact that a period of 30 days had lapsed. They were, therefore, proceeded against exparte. 4. In the exparte evidence, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 reiterating his allegations on oath and stating that the contents of the complaint be read as the part of his affidavit. He also tendered in evidence copy of the legal notice dated 29.05.2008 sent to the opposite parties through registered mail Ex.C-2; copy of the invoice of the Analyzer in the sum of Rs.1,55,000/- Ex.C-3; copy of acceptance letter dated 2.7.2008 of the G.M.(Sales) of OP No.1 & 2 Ex.C-4 vide which they agreed to replace the original Analyzer with a fresh one; letters written by the complainant to the manufacturer-OP Ex.C-5 & C-6 complaining about the defects in the Analyzer and copies of the service reports of the engineers/officials of the opposite parties dated 16.11.2007, 19.2.2008 and 21.6.2008 Ex.C-7 to C-9, respectively. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant. 6. From the evidence produced by the complainant and from copy of the letter of the opposite parties dated 2.7.2008 Ex.C-4, it is proved that the complainant purchased the Analyzer in question from OP No.3 which was manufactured by Ops No.1 and 2. The letter Ex.C-4 coupled with other evidence of the complainant proves that the Analyzer did not Contd........4 : 4 : function properly and had basic defects. It is further proved that the defects and non functioning of the Analyzer were even admitted by OPs No.1 and 2 and by their officials as is clear from service reports Ex.C-7 to C-9. 7. In para 2 of the acceptance letter Ex.C-4, OPs No.1 and 2 wanted to give one year guarantee for the filters and printer of the Analyzer to be replaced and 2000 hours guarantee for the Halogen lamp fixed therein. Vide his letter Ext.C-6 sent in response to acceptance letter Ex.C-4, the complainant did not accept the guarantee period of the filters and printer as offered by OPs No.1 and 2 vide para 2 of the letter Ex.C-4. Thus the things, as they stand, show that the Analyzer that was sold by the opposite parties to the complainant was defective and replacement of the same with a fresh Analyzer was also proposed by OPs No.1 and 2 on the original terms and conditions. It seems that the new Analyzer that may be supplied on the original terms and conditions may again develop the same problems and that is why the complainant vide his response letter Ex.C-6 sought a guarantee and warranty for three years for the filters and printer of the Analyzer to be replaced. In response to the letter of the complainant Ex.C-6, the opposite parties never sent any reply. That means that they are not willing to offer 3 years guarantee or warranty to the complainant for the Analyzer to be replaced. In the circumstances, the relief of replacement of the Analyzer is not the proper relief to be granted to the complainant and in our considered opinion the refund of the sale price of the Analyzer is justified in this case. It is a proven case of defective Analyzer. 8. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed. OPs No.1 to 3 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,55,000/-, the sale price of the Analyzer to the complainant with interest thereon @ 10% per annum from the date of invoice i.e. 21.9.2007 till the date of realization. The opposite parties are also directed to pay costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. The liability of the three opposite parties shall be joint Contd........5 : 5 : as well as several. On payment as aforesaid to the complainant, the Ops shall be entitled to take back the Analyzer from the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order which shall be supplied to the parties free of charges. File be consigned. Pronounced: October 16,2008. Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, B.S.Mehandiratta, Member. Member. President.
