X-MED SYSTEMS vs GHUNGAR MAL GULERIA

M/s. X. Mod Systems, New Delhi and others have come up in appeal against the order dated 20th September, 1994 passed by learned District Consumer Forum, Yamunanagar, whereby the complaint of Dr. C.M. Guleria, claiming compensation for the supply defective X. Med unit by the appellants-respondents, has been allowed and appellants have been directed, either to replace the X. Ray Unit to the complainant or to refund Rs. 1,20,000/- with 18% intetrest w.e.f. 15.3.1993, as also costs and damages amounting to Rs. 10,000/-.

ACCORDING to the complainant, X. Med Unit purchased by him for the sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- on 15.3.1993 was not giving satisfactory service from the very day of its installation as the X. Ray tube had to be replaced within 24 hours. Soon, thereafter second tube also started leaking, which too, had to be repaired by the appellants. Thus defect after defect came into notice and the machine did not give satisfactory service, for which the appellants had to be approached time and time again. Aggrieved by this deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and for the supply of defective machinery the complainant approached the District Consumer Forum, for replacement of the machine alongwith Rs. 50,000/- as damages. Though the notice of the complaint was duly received by the appellants, yet, no written reply was filed by them. However, their Counsel was duly heard, by the learned District Consumer Forum, who after considering the material on record, came to the conclusion that the machinery supplied was certainly defective as it did not give satisfactory service from the very first day of its installation. It was on that basis the complaint has been allowed.

In the appeal before us, learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended by raising an interesting argument, that even though the machinery supplied was of high quality and quite upto the mark, it must have been spoiled by in-efficient handling by un-qualified and untrained mechanics and staff of the complainant.

SINCE, the appellants did not file their written statement and also chose not to lead any evidence, in order to fair to them, and to appreciate their contention, we asked the complainant to furnish information with regard to the staff employed by him, who had been operating the machine. Accordingly, Dr. Guleriacomplainant has filed his affidavit dated 10th August, 1995 to the following effect : 1. That I am the Sole Proprietor of M/s. X. Ray Centre, Puran Vihar, Jagadhri, Yamunanagar. 2. That there are 5 Doctors four of which are MBBS and one is BAMS and 8 Nurses working in the C.T. Centre. 3. That the X. Med 100 m. A X-Ray unit purchased by the deponent from the appellant is installed in the Centre and only Ms. Lalita Rani qualified Rediographer from Institute of Public Health and Hygiene, New Delhi who has worked in prestigious Institution like PGI, Chandigarh and Shivalik Diagnositic Centre, Yamunanagar, operates the X-Ray Unit. 4. That the affidavit of Ms. Lalita Rani and the relevant documents showing her credentials are accompanying this affidavit."

Affidavit of Ms. Lalita Rani D/o Sh. Atma Ram 1. "That I am working in X. Ray Centre, Puran Vihar, Jagadhri, as Radiographer from 16.10.1992 till date. 2. That l have qualified from lnstitute of Public Health and Hygiene, New Delhi in 1991, Diploma in X. Ray Technicia. 3. That I have worked in the Deptt. of Radio Diagnosis, PGI, Chandigarh as a Radiographer for the period from 2nd July, 1991 to 31st August, 1991. 4 That I have also worked as Radio Grapher with Shivalik Diagnositic Centre Yamunanagar from September, 1991 to October, 1992. 5. That l myself was operating, handling the X. Ray Plant make of X. Med System, Delhi installed at X. Ray Centre, Puran Vihar, Jagadhri."

From the above, it is evident that the staff employed by the complainant-Dr. Guleria, who has been operating the machine was fully experienced and technically qualified.

AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, and having gone through the necessary documents, we do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants. Consequently, we uphold the decision of the learned District Consumer Forum, and dismiss the appeal with costs, which is quantified as Rs. l.000/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.