KUSUM BAKHSHI AHLAWAT vs M.P.UNI-MAGNA-TECH LTD

THE narrow question that now survives in this complaint, is, whether there is a deficiency in service (of providing training to the consumer) undertaken to be performed by the opposite party M/s M.P. Uni-Manga-Tech. Ltd.

THE facts merit notice with considerable brevity relevant to the question aforesaid. Dr.(Mrs.) Kusum Bakhshi Ahlawat had placed the order for one set of Ultrasound Diagonostic Scanner for a sum of Rs. 2,80,000/-only. It is her case that according to the quotation dated the 21st of February, 1992 (Annexure I) the opposite party had categorically agreed to provide training for the said equipment at their centres at Delhi. It was the stand that it was this assurance which primarily inspired the complainant to purchase the said Ultrasound Machine. Her primal grievance was that despite repeated requests and reminders and personal visits by the complainant the said requisite training for operating the Ultrasound Scanner was never afforded by the opposite party. This virtually rendered the equipment un-useable by the complainant till she managed to secure the necessary training from another institution namely Sir Ganga Ram Hospital from 1st of November,1992 to 21st of November, 1992. It was pointed put that the full payment or the Ultra Sound Scanner was made by the complainant and it was installed on their premises on the 25th of March, 1992, but the same had to lie unused till the end of November, 1992 causing serious financial loss as also considerable damage to her professional reputation apart from mental harassment. On these accounts a total claim of Rs. 1,75,000/- was raised. In contesting the complaint the primal reliance of the opposite party was on preliminary objections including the threshold one that the complainant was not consumer under the Act. On merits it was sought to be pleaded that the training could not be given to the complainant as she failed to adhere to the directions by the opposite party. It was stoutly pleaded that the complainant''s name stood at serial No. 9 in the waiting list of the Doctors for giving training and consequently her turn could not come for 6 months or more, and later she was called to undergo the same but she failed to contact the opposite party. The basic plea was that despite the admitted delay and denial of training, there was no deficiency in the services undertaken.

It deserves highlighting that the primal thrust of the opposite party was with regard to the consumer status of the complainant. This was contentiously fought out on their behalf. The preliminary objections on this score were disposed of by a separate exhaustive order of this Commission dated the 11th of May, 1993 which may be deemed as part of the present order. It is common ground that no revision was taken against the said order and the same has attained finality against the opposite party. The surviving cause of action only therefore remains for adjudication.

IN support of her complaint on merits an additional affidavit of Dr. Chattar Singh Ahalawat, the husband of the complainant was placed on the record. This supported the averments in the pleadings to the hilt. The deponent was cross-examined at some length on behalf of the opposite party without eliciting anything worth the name in their favour. Apart from this firm reliance was placed on Annexures 1 to 9 to the complaint. The authenticity of these documents was not challenged. In rebuttal the opposite party has rested itself content by putting in an affidavit of Mr. S .Lakhanpal. Area Sales Manager at Chandigarh, apart from some documentary evidence. This deponent was cross-examined at some length which elicited considerable material in favour of the complainant including the virtually conclusive admission with regard to the execution and the contents of the documents relied upon by the complainant.

AS already noticed at the outset, the matter is now in a narrow compass. The primal question is that whether the delay in providing the vital training to the complainant for operating the Ultrasound Scanner from exactly the 25th March, 1992 till as late as the 21st of November, 1992 was a patent deficiency? To correctly appraise the issue one must first notice the fact that herein the Ultrasound Scanner is admittedly a highly sophisticated equipment. Its cost of Rs. 2,80,000/- and the sensitive components on the basis of which it operates is not at all in dispute. The learned Counsel for the opposite party had himself conceded that this Scanner was being manufactured or assembled only by MOs M.P. Uni-Magna-Tech. Ltd. Mr. Jain pointed out that the highly sensitive components of this equipment had necessarily to be imported from Japan through such well-known companies like Toshiba. It was conceded on behalf of the opposite party that meaningfully using the said equipment would require a high degree of expertise by a specially trained person. Without such an operator the equipment was therefore, of little or no use to its purchase. It was for this precise reasons that the opposite party had sold the equipment with the clear cut undertaking of providing training to their customer at their Centres at Delhi. The provision of this service was integral to the whole transaction and it was rightly the case of the complainant that she was primarily inspired to enter into the contract on the firm premise of being provided such training expeditiously. It would follow inevitably that any gross delay in providing such training would be a patent deficiency in services clearly undertaken by the opposite party. Once the aforesaid conclusion is arrived at, it is writ large over the record that the opposite party has been guilty of first gross delay in providing the training and ultimately in a total denial thereof. One may first refer to Annexure I the very quotation dated the 21st of February, 1992 in which the crucial undertaking was in the following terms: "We also provide training to our customers at our centres at Delhi. However, lodging, boarding and incidental expenses would be to buyer''s account. With Toshiba trained service Engineers at our office at Chandigarh, we are poised to provide the best services and look forward to an opportunity of serving you."

It may be recalled that the equipment was installed at the complainants clinic on 25th of March, 1992 and as noticed already it would hardly be of any use unless the requisite training to operate the same was provided. However, false hopes were extended to the complainant vide Annexure III dated 20th of March, 1992 to confirm that full training will be provided to her at Delhi for a week or 10 days. However, nothing seems to have come out of these rosy promises, for almost three, four months. Thereafter vide Annexure IV dated the 2nd of July, 1992, it was virtually admitted that harrassment was being meted out to the complainant with repard to the absence of training and it was directed that better treatment is given to the customers desirous of getting training at Delhi. Yet again vide Annexure V dated the 2nd of August, 1992 regret was expressed by the opposite party that training dates could not be communicated to her by their Delhi office. The false assurance was extended that in a few days the training dates would be communicated. Nothing concreate however, followed, compelling the complainants to resort to the formal legal notice vide Annexure VI dated the 2nd of September, 1992. The only response thereto was the telegram by Sh. Ravi Saxena on behalf of the opposite parties saying that they were arranging a week or 10 days training at New Delhi and in terms expressing regret for the inconvenience caused to her. However, barring this paper consolation nothing concrete was done by the opposite party, leaving no alternative to the complainant but to seek and secure the necessary training from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital from the 1st of November, 1992 for the period of three weeks.

THE aforesaid resume of admitted documents speak for themselves. Indeed, Mr. S.D. Jain, the learned Counsel for the opposite party was compelled to concede that undoubtedly there had been some delay in providing the training. However he sought shelter behind the fact that no firm time-frame for the training has been expressly fixed by the opposite party In view of what already has been noticed, this stance has to be only noticed and rejected. It suffices to highlight that a full nine months elapsed from the original undertaking to provide training till the end of November, 1992 in which only the mirage of promises was extended and broken by the opposite party. THErefore, it must be held guilty of grave deficiency in the service, they had been undertaken.

COMING now to the relief, the complainant in Clauses (a) to (g) has attempted to quantify the financial loss arising to a somewhat tall claim of Rs. 1,25,000/-. It is however patent that some of the damages claimed are too remote and speculative in nature. Only item (b) & (c) totalling Rs. 45,000/- and the payment and expense incurred by the complainant to secure training at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, are a reasonably entertainable as fair compensation in the present context. A sum of over-all round figure of Rs. 55,000/- would amply meet the ends of justice. The complainant is also entitled to the costs which are work out at Rs. 5000/- only and these are consequently awarded. To conclude we hereby direct that the opposite party would pay to the complainant the aforesaid sum of Rs. 60,000/- only within one month from today failing which compliance will be enforced under Section 27 of the Act. Complaint allowed with costs.