BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 282 of 2022
Date of Institution : 13.04.2022
Date of Decision : 24.04.2024
Dr. Vinod Mehta C/o Lal Dental Clinic, Near LIC Office, Old Civil Hospital Road, Sirsa – 125055, Haryana.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Vatech India, 1016/2, 2nd Floor, SM Plaza, Bypass Road, Opposite CISF, Mahipalpur, New Delhi- 110037 through Authorized Person.
2. Anand Dental Systems, 85, 1st Floor, Bishnoi Market, Sirsa – 125055 through its Prop./ Authorized Person.
…….Opposite Parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR……. PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Subhash Chander, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party no.1 already exparte.
Sh. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant is a famous Dentist of Sirsa District and running his clinic. The complainant approached the op no.2 to purchase the RVG (Dental X-ray Machine) and op no.2 sold the RVG machine manufactured by op no.1 to the complainant for a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- vide invoice no. 385 dated 05.02.2018. The ops also assured him that this is best RVG machine and carries warranty of five years. It is further averred that thereafter complainant started facing problems in working of RVG machine first time in the month of February, 2020 and ops assured him to resolve the issue as early as possible. However, complainant lodged complaint with ops. Thereafter, op no.1 started lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other by giving reason of Covid-19 pandemic and ultimately on 23.09.2021 complainant approached to op no.1 in his office at Delhi to get RVG machine repaired/ replaced and op demanded Rs.85,000/- for replacement. It is further averred that when complainant asked about the five years warranty, the ops refused to repair the machine and have adopted unfair trade practice and have caused deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant. The ops were liable to replace the machine free of cost or to refund the amount of invoice to the complainant and complainant also got issued a legal notice to the ops but all in vain. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to the ops to pay amount of Rs.1,30,000/- alongwith interest and also to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for unnecessary harassment and also to pay litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, op no.1 failed to appear despite delivery of notice and as such op no.1 was proceeded against exparte.
4. Op no.2 appeared and filed written statement submitting therein that complainant faced problem in the working of the machine and in this respect he contacted the answering op who advised him to approach op no.1 for doing the needful as the same is the manufacturer of the machine and machine is under warranty period. It is further submitted that op no.1 has demanded Rs.85,000/- from the complainant for repairing the above machine during the warranty of said machine. However, op no.1 is duty bound to repair/ replace the machine as the machine is under warranty given by op no.1. It is further submitted that it is the duty of op no.1 to repair/ replace the machine during warranty free of costs and in case of non replacement, the complainant is entitled to the relief/ claim as sought in the complaint. The answering op is not liable to get repaired/ replaced the said machine as he has already sold the same. With these averments, dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 prayed for.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and copies of documents i.e. tax invoice Ex.C1, legal notice Ex.C2 and adhar card Ex.C3.
6. Learned counsel for op no.2 suffered a statement that written statement filed on behalf of op no.2 may be treated as their evidence.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
8. From the tax invoice Ex.C1, it is evident that on 05.02.2028 complainant had purchased RVG machine from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- and said machine is manufactured by op no.2. The complainant has also tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in evidence in which he has reiterated all the contents of his complaint. There is no denial of the fact that there is no defect in the working of the RVG machine from the side of any of the ops i.e. dealer and manufacturer rather manufacturer of the machine in question has opted to be proceeded against exparte despite notice. Rather there is admission on the part of op no.1 dealer that complainant faced problem in the working of the machine whereas manufacturer has not bothered to appear before this Commission despite notice. Since there is defect in the RVG machine purchased by complainant during warranty period, therefore, complainant is entitled to refund of the price of the machine from op no.2 i.e. manufacturer of the machine and op no.1 is also jointly and severally liable for refund as complainant purchased the machine manufactured by op no.2 from op no.1.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct both the ops to make refund of the price of the machine in question i.e. Rs.1,30,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of @6% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 13.04.2022 till actual realization within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Both the ops are jointly and severally liable to make refund of the price of the machine in question to the complainant. Besides this, we also direct op no.2 i.e. manufacturer to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period as op no.2 did not bother to appear before this Commission and has not bothered to redress the grievance of complainant in time. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member President,
Dated: 24.04.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
