Haryana

Jind

CC/15/26

Dr. Rajesh Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Trivitron Health Care - Opp.Party(s)

Sh . S.K. Singla Narwana

04 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.

                                           Complaint No. 20 of 2015

   Date of Institution: 11.2.2015

   Date of final order: 4.4.2016

Dr. Rajesh Gupta, Gupta Ultrasound Centre, 123-Model Town, Narwana, District Jind.

 

                                                             ….Complainant.

                                       Versus

1. Trivitron Health Care Pvt. Ltd. Trivitron Sapthagiri Bhavan, 15, IV street, Abhiramapuran, Chennai-600018 Tamilnadu through its Chairman/M.D.
2. Manager, Trivitron Health Care Pvt. Ltd., B-1/A-12, Mohan Co-op Industrial Estate, Mathura road, New Delhi-110044.

 

…..Opposite parties.

                          Complaint under section 12 of

 

Before: Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Presiding Member.

            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.   

 

Present:  Sh. S.K. Singla Adv. for complainant.

              Sh. Dinesh Deshwal Adv. for opposite parties.

            

ORDER:

 

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  had purchased an Aloka Colour Doppler Model Prosound 14 ultrasound machine  for a sum of Rs.7 lacs vide bill invoice No. IN/TIMG/DE/0047/12 dated 23.2.2013 from the opposite parties. The opposite parties have installed the above said machine at Gupta Ultrasound Centre, Model Town, Narwana on 31.3.2013. The opposite parties have given one year guarantee/warranty of the above said

                Dr. Rajesh Gupta Vs. Trivitron Health care etc.

                                        …2…

ultrasound machine. After some days of its purchase the function stopped working. The Engineer of the opposite parties visited the hospital and checked the machine/unit and he observed vide his service report No.3135 dated 31.5.2013that some of the keys of alphanumeric key board are not working and after cleaning still not found any change and it needs to replace. The complainant requested many times to the opposite parties to replace the above said machine but no satisfactory reply was given by the opposite parties. Thereafter, the opposite parties have replaced Prosound 14 Make of Aloka ultrasound machine and has given extended warranty of 6 months on expiry of current term vide letter dated 20.11.2013. The ultrasound machine is creating some problems and complainant made many representations to the opposite parties to provide service but the opposite parties did not provide service to the complainant. The complainant served a legal notice dated 21.9.2014 through his counsel Sh. S.K. Singla Adv. upon the opposite parties but all in vain. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to replace the above said ultrasound machine or to pay the cost of ultrasound machine i.e. Rs.7 lacs as well as to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant.

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties have appeared and filed the written statement stating in the preliminary objections i.e. the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum and complainant

                Dr. Rajesh Gupta Vs. Trivitron Health care etc.

                                        …3…

has suppressed the material facts. On merits, it is contended that the complainant was utilizing the ultrasound machine for commercial purpose in the Hospital where the machine was installed and fees were charged from the patients for the services provided by his hospital. It is clear from this fact that the complainant availed of the service in question for “Commercial Purpose” and therefore complainant is not a ‘consumer’ under Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. For the purposes of this clause, “Commercial Purpose” does not include use by such person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. The present dispute between the complainant and the opposite parties is a business to business dispute. To come within the definition of ‘Consumer’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, the buyers of goods must be using the goods himself i.e. for self-employment or for earning his livelihood which is not the case here. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Dismissal of complaint with costs is prayed for.

 3.    In evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1,  copy of tax invoice Ex. C-2, copy of letter dated 20.11.2013 Ex. C-3, copy of document Ex. C-4, copy of legal notice dated 21.9.2014 Ex. C-5, copy of letter dated 20.10.2014 Ex. C-6, postal receipts Ex. C-7 and C-8, copies of receipts Ex. C-9 and C-10, copies of service report Ex. C-11 and C-12, copy of installation report Ex. C-13, copy of letter dated 15.2.2013 Ex. C-14, copy of delivery challan Ex. C-15,

                Dr. Rajesh Gupta Vs. Trivitron Health care etc.

                                        …4…

copy of document Ex. C-16 and C-17, copy of installation report Ex. C-18 and  copy of service report Ex. C-19 and closed the evidence. Evidence on behalf opposite parties not filed despite last opportunities, hence the evidence of opposite parties were closed vide order of this Forum dated 1.10.2015.

4.     We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsels of all the parties and perused the record placed on file. The Ld. Counsel of complainant argued that the said Aloka Colour Doppler started giving trouble just after its installation. The Trivitron is the only company which manufactures and repairs its product i.e. the Colour Doppler. On complaint of  the complainant, the Engineer of the company inspected the machine and ultimately the keys of alphanumeric keyboard were changed. But after some time of its repair, the machine started giving trouble again. The complainant contacted the company for its repair but the company did not show any interest for its repair. The warranty period of the machine was upto 29.9.2014 and a legal notice was served by the Ld. Counsel of the complainant on 21.9.2014. The Ld. Counsel of the complainant argued that the machine is still in working conditions but with giving some interruptions and trouble and requested for its repair.

5.     The Ld. Counsel of the opposite parties argued that there has been regular services of the machine from the opposite parties and also some spare parts has been changed three times already. The complainant has made the complaint just to extend the warranty period for six months as per Ex. C-6. The Ld. Counsel of the opposite parties

                Dr. Rajesh Gupta Vs. Trivitron Health care etc.

                                        …5…

also argued that for the reputation of the company, the company is ready to repair the said machine.

6.     The complainant comes under the definition of consumer as he is earning from the machine by means of self employment. We are of the considered view that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint is allowed in the interest of justice and the opposite parties are directed to repair the said machine. Parties will bear their own litigation expenses. The order be complianced within one month from the date of orders. The copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.

Announced on: 4.4.2016

                                                           Presiding Member,

 Member                                        District Consumer Disputes                                                               Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                Dr. Rajesh Gupta Vs. Trivitron Health care etc.

                                       

Present:  Sh. S.K. Singla Adv. for complainant.

              Sh. Dinesh Deshwal Adv. for opposite parties.

 

             Arguments heard. To come up on 4.4.2016 for orders.

 

                                                           Presiding Member,

                Member                                  DCDRF, Jind

                                                                  30.3.2016

 

Present:  Sh. S.K. Singla Adv. for complainant.

              Sh. Dinesh Deshwal Adv. for opposite parties.

 

              Order announced, vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

                                                            Presiding Member,

                Member                                  DCDRF, Jind

                                                                  4.4.2016