RUSTAGI SURGICAL PVT LTD vs PRABHAT RASHMI PARIDA

Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), is to order dated 9.3.2015 in First Appeal No. 1142 of 2012 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short the "State Commission"). By its impugned order, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Opposite Party for non-appearance as well as for non-prosecution.

The brief facts as set out in the Complaint are that the Complainant, who is a patient of respiratory problems, needed a BIPAP machine for ventilation support. She was working with Airport Authority of India, who placed an order with the Opposite Party, on her behalf, for purchase of BIPAP Harmony Ventilation Support, on the basis of quotation of OP dated 23.5.2008 for Rs. 1,66,400/-, out of which Rs. 66,400/- was to be paid by her. On 20th June 2008, the Opposite Party gave a second quotation for Rs. 1,24,800/-. Vide letter dated 1.7.2008, the earlier order was cancelled and a fresh order was placed at the revised rate of Rs. 1,24,800/-, out of which Rs. 24,800/- was to be deposited by her.

On 8.7.2008, on delivery of the machine, the Complainant averred that she had used it and found it to be defective and its mask was also unsatisfactory and therefore, she withheld the payment of Rs. 22,800/- by cheque, till the machine was replaced. The Opposite Party on the next day, wrote a letter to her office that they were unable to supply the offered equipment and requested that the machine be returned. The Complainant pleaded that the Opposite Party had sent their personnel to collect the machine when she was not there and that as it was a life support system for her, she could not give it back until it was replaced. She stated in her complaint that she was forced to purchase a new machine by spending Rs. 2 lakhs.

The Opposite Party in their written version submitted that the machine was not returned and that they had supplied a machine on rent to her for which the Complainant had paid only an advance and not the rent which was due. It was also averred that the machine collected by the Complainant''s husband was of Synchrony Model and was given only as a stop gap arrangement.

The District Forum based on the evidence adduced observed that the action of the Opposite Party in recalling the offer and demanding the machine back put the Complainant in undue stress necessitating the Complainant to look for alternatives and awarded an amount of Rs. 75,000/- towards damages.

The Opposite Party preferred an Appeal before the State Commission with delay for which the Commission had imposed costs of Rs. 5,000/- for condoning the delay. As the Appellant neither paid the costs nor appeared on the last date of hearing, the State Commission observed that the Respondent/Complainant is a sick lady and was present in the court since morning carrying oxygen cylinder with her and dismissed the Appeal for non-appearance and non-prosecution.

The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the earlier machine had not been returned by the Respondent/Complainant and that the District Forum had erroneously observed the same. Even before this Commission, the Respondent/Complainant appeared with her ventilation support and submitted that if the Petitioner comes forward to take back the machine, they (Respondent and her husband) are ready and willing to return the same.

It is the main contention of the Respondent that the machine which was supplied by the Petitioner herein was defective. Having regard to the fact that the Respondent is a sick lady on ventilation support system and also the admission of the Revision Petitioner that he is ready and willing to take back the machine, the Revision Petitioner is directed to collect the machine within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. I do not see any substantial ground in our limited jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the District Forum with respect to awarding of Rs. 75,000/- towards damages as the Opposite Party had recalled the offer and demanded the machine back putting the Complainant under undue stress. This amount of Rs. 75,000/- shall be paid on the date when the Personnel of the Opposite Party approaches the Respondent/Complainant for taking back the defective ventilation support.

This Revision Petition is disposed of with the afore-mentioned directions. No order as to costs.