AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The complainant/respondent purchased a Colour Doppler Ultrasound Scanner alongwith two probes 19'''' LCD Monitors with articulated arm and standard accessories including Adult Cardiac Probe and Stress Echo System from the petitioner, for a consideration of Rs.15,45,000/-. The aforesaid machine was delivered and installed on 27.03.2014. The complainant/respondent sent an e-mail dated 10.10.2014 to the overseas parent company of the petitioner, alleging therein that the product supplied to them by Esaote India Limited, the petitioner before this Commission was defective. Before writing the aforesaid complaint to the parent company of the petitioner, no complaint directly to the petitioner was made. The aforesaid complaint however, was not forwarded by the parent company to the petitioner company since the transaction had happened between the petitioner company and the respondent. Without addressing the complaint to the petitioner and seeking removal of the alleged defects in the machine, the complainant/respondent approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking refund of the amount paid by him alongwith interest and compensation.
The petitioner remained exparte before the District Forum which vide its order dated 14.08.2015, directed as under: (a) The OPs shall by jointly & severally taking back the said machine, pay Rs.15,45,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Lakhs Forty Five Thousand) to the complainant,
(b) The OPs shall shall jointly & severally from the date of filing of dispute till realization of amount, pay interest on the said amount at the rate of 18 per cent per annum.
(c) The OPs shall jointly & severally pay Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs. Four Lakhs) towards the loss caused to the complainant on account of providing of the said defective machine.
(d) The OPs shall jointly & severally pay compensation to the complainant of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) towards mental harassment.
(e) The OPs shall jointly & severally pay Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) towards the cost of the proceedings.
Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 14.01.2016, the State Commission modified the aforesaid order and directed refund of Rs.15,45,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum after obtaining the machine in question from the complainant. The compensation was reduced to Rs.1,00,000/-. Being still dissatisfied, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
The main question which arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the machine supplied by the petitioner to the respondent/complainant was defective or not. No expert Engineer was examined by the respondent/complainant before the District Forum to prove the alleged defects in the machine purchased by him from the petitioner. Though the complainant/respondent who is present alongwith his Advocate claims that he himself is an expert, the said claim cannot be accepted, he being a medical practitioner and not a qualified Engineer.
When this petition came up for hearing on 13.04.2016, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated on instructions that the petitioner company was ready to remove the defects if any in the machine supplied by it without charging anything from the complainant and was also ready to give a fresh warranty to the complainant on the machine free from any defect, from the date the machine was returned to the complainant. It was thereafter, that a notice of the revision petition was issued to the complainant/respondent. However, the complainant/respondent is not willing to accept the aforesaid offer and states that he has since purchased a new machine about 2-3 months ago. In my view, considering the offer made by the petitioner company on 13.04.2016, the complainant/respondent should not have purchased a new machine during the pendency of this revision petition without prior permission of this Commission. Obviously, the purpose behind purchasing the above machine despite the order dated 13.04.2016 was to preempt any order from this Commission, directing him to accept the machine free from any defect. The complainant has only himself to blame for creating a situation in which, he has purchased a new machine and therefore, is not willing to accept a machine free from any defect alongwith a fresh warranty.
Even if it is presumed that the machine supplied to the complainant had developed some defect, the entitlement of the complainant is only to the removal of the said defect and the petitioner cannot be directed to refund the money received from complainant, if it is ready to remove the alleged defect in the machine and also give a fresh warranty from the date of the delivering the machine free from any defect.
For the reasons stated hereinabove and particularly considering the refusal of the complainant to accept the offer made by the petitioner on 13.04.2016, the direction for refund of the amount paid by the complainant for purchase of the machine cannot be sustained. The impugned orders are therefore, set aside and the complaint is consequently, dismissed. It is however, made clear that if the complainant/respondent has a re-thinking in the matter and is ready and willing to accept the offer made by the petitioner on 13.04.2016, he shall convey the acceptance of the said offer to the petitioner within two weeks from today and in that case, the petitioner will collect the machine from the complainant, remove the defects if any in the machine and deliver a machine free from any defects to the complainant alongwith a fresh warranty of one year from the date of delivery. The revision petition stands disposed of.