Haryana

StateCommission

CC/57/2015

BATRA SCANNING CENTRE - Complainant(s)

Versus

TRIVITRON MEDICAL SYSTEM PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SAHIL KHUNGER

01 Mar 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                             Consumer Complaint No.     57 of 2015

                                      Date of Institution                  05.05.2015

                                       Date of Decision                             01.03.2017

 

Batra Scanning Centre through its proprietor/owner Dr. Dev Raj Batra, near bus stand, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                      Complainant

 

Versus

 

 

Trivitron Medical System Private Limited through its Director, Trivitron Sapthagiri Bhawan No.15, IVth Street, Abhiramaouram, Chennai-600018.

Opposite Party

 

 

 

CORAM:            Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                                                                                      

                 

For the parties:   Dr. Dev Raj Batra, complainant with Shri Sahil Khunger, Advocate

                             Shri Ashish Bagri, Senior Customer Support Engineer on behalf of the opposite party.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

          Batra Scanning Centre, Panchkula through its proprietor Dr. Dev Raj Batra has filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that he placed order for the purchase of Aloka Color Doppler, Model Pro Sound SSD Alpha 7 (Diagnostic Ultrasound System) with Trivitron Medical System Private Limited-opposite party.  He paid Rs.23,00,000/-, that is, the price of the ultrasound system as mentioned in Exhibit C-1, to the opposite party.  The ultrasound system was installed on September 11^th, 2011 vide installation report Exhibit C-2. The warranty period of the ultrasound system was for one year, that is, upto September 10^th, 2012.  At the time of installation, the complainant pointed out that “Generalized haze (fog) is in lower part of the image is seen, which could not be corrected” as mentioned against the column customer’s remarks  The said remarks were made in the presence of Shri Ashish Bagri, Senior Customer Support Engineer.  He assured that the defects would be rectified but it did not. 

2.      The opposite party, in its, written version, resisted the complaint on various grounds including its maintainability.  On merits, it is pleaded that at the time of installation, all the three probes were in working condition and there were no physical damages on the lens surface of the probe.  The engineer has remarked that the machine was successfully installed and handed over in good working condition.  After receiving the complaint, the opposite party deputed its engineer to visit the complainant.  The engineer observed that the probes were damaged due to rat bites.  The opposite party denied the remaining contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.      The complainant Dr. Dev Raj Batra in his evidence appeared as CW1 and produced following the documents:-

1.	Description of Ultrasound System	Exhibit C-1
2.	Installation Report	Exhibit C-2
3.	Service Report	Exhibit C-3
4.	Email	Exhibit C-4
5.	Email	Exhibit C-5
6.	Legal Notice dated October 24th, 2014	Exhibit C-6
7.	Reminder dated February 23rd, 2015	Exhibit C-7

 

4.      The opposite party examined Ashish Bagri, Senior Customer Engineer-OPW1.

5.       Arguments heard.  Record perused.

6.      It is not in dispute that the ultrasound system was installed by the opposite party on September 11^th, 2011.  The complainant made the payment of Rs.23,00,000/- to the opposite party for the purchase of ultrasound system.  A perusal of the installation report (Exhibit C-2) shows that on the day of installation itself, complainant pointed out that Generalized haze (fog) is in lower part of the image is seen, which could not be corrected.  Ashish Bagri gave assurance to the complainant that the defects would be removed but he did not.   The complainant made complaint to the opposite party.  Ashish Bagri checked the ultrasound system on June 20^th, 2012 as mentioned in service report.  Again the complainant made remarks that the defects were not removed. 

7.      In his deposition, Dr. Dev Raj Batra has stated that in case the ultrasound system is repaired by the opposite party, he would be satisfied. 

8.      In face of it, Shri Ashish Bagri, Senior Customer Support Engineer has stated at bar that the defects in the ultrasound system would be rectified.

9.      From the record, it is proved that there are some defects in the ultrasound system right from the beginning, that is, September 11^th, 2011, which the complainant has been pointing out to the opposite party regularly.  No evidence has been led by the opposite party to disbelieve the contention of the complainant. Certainly defects developed during the warranty period, so it was the liability of the opposite party to rectify the same.  Accordingly, the opposite party is directed to remove the defects in the ultrasound system free of cost as pointed out by the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of this order. After rectifying the defects in the ultrasound system, two engineers of the opposite party would examine and issue a certificate to the complainant with respect to its repair.  In case, the opposite party fails to comply with the order of this Commission, the complainant would be at liberty to get the ultrasound system repaired from the authorized agency of the ultrasound system in question and the expenses incurred by him, shall be recoverable from the opposite party by adopting due process of law.  The complaint stands disposed of accordingly. 

 

 

Announced 01.03.017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK