C.C.No.654 of 2007

BETWEEN:

Dr.Chilukuri Padmavathi Devi,
W/o. Dr.Bhairapaneni Vijaya Babu,
C/o. Diabetic Care Center,
Old Club Road, Kothapet,
Guntur. … Complainant

AND

1. Schiller Health Care India (P) Ltd.,
Rep. by Sri M.Nazar,
304-B, 4th floor, lakshmi Nilayam Apartments,
Next to YMCA Gard, Narayanguda,
Hyderabad.
2. Sri Pad Inc Service Division,
Rep. by M.Kishore,
D.No.29-12-45, Venkata Ratnam Street,
Vijayawada.
3. N.Madhava Rao,
Sri Pad Inc Service Division,
D.No.29-12-45, Venkata Ratnam Street,
Vijayawada. … Opposite parties

This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 28-04-09 in the presence of Sri C.Narendra Babu, Advocate for complainant and the opposite parties remained absent and set exparte, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:

O R D E R
Per Sri T. ANJANEYULU, PRESIDENT:

This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant claiming an amount of Rs.46,000/- towards cost of AT-1 ECG Machine and Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony, interest and business loss.
The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is a practicing Doctor in Diabetes in the name and style of Diabetic Care Center at Kothapet, Guntur and at Main Road, Lakshmipuram, Guntur since more than 10 years. The 1st opposite party is the main dealer of Schiller Health Care India (P) Ltd. and 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are the representatives as Service Division for the 1st opposite party and the business of the opposite parties is in selling and supplying of ECG machines and monitors etc. The 1st opposite party through the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties approached the complainant for supply of two ECG machines i.e., Schiller Darciovid AT-1 and AT-2 ECG machines for cost of Rs.46,000/- and Rs.58,000/- respectively. The opposite parties have also placed quotation for the same on 17-11-2006 while giving warranty for a period of 12 months from the date of installation or 13 months from the date of shipment. Having attracted by the propaganda and promise made by the opposite parties the complainant purchased two machines by paying amount through DDs in the name of 2nd opposite party, who in turn raised bill for both the machines on 18-12-06 and installed the machines in the clinics of complainant. The first machine AT-1 purchased at the cost of Rs.46,000/- was not installed properly at the time of installation. As such it was causing obstruction and trouble right from its installation. The complainant informed the same to the opposite parties to verify and rectify the defect. Though it was verified by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties, it is giving same trouble. In the month of June, 2007 the 2nd opposite party attended for service, verified the machine and informed that the defect is manufacturing defect and took the machine in order to replace with a new one and same has been informed to the 1st opposite party in the presence of the complainant. Later the 2nd machine also gave trouble and not working properly. This defect was also informed to the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party attended for service and rectified the defect in the second machine. At that time, the 1st opposite party promised to replace with a new machine in place of old defective machine and also provide stand by machine to the complainant until new machine is installed. Though they promised to do so, the same has not been complied despite of several phone calls and reminders. There was no response at all from the opposite parties. The complainant faced much difficulty for want of machine in her day to day practice. At last, she got issued registered legal notice on 03-08-07 demanding them to deliver new machine or to refund the cost of machine i.e., Rs.46,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of payment along with damages of Rs.10,000/-. The 1st opposite party received legal notice. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties managed to return the same. The interest evinced by the opposite parties at the time of selling machines is not continued there after. Thus, there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties as well as fraud in supplying defective machine. Hence, the complaint.
Notices of this complaint have been sent through registered post to the opposite parties. But they were returned with postal endorsement that the firm of 2nd opposite party abolished and 1st and 3rd opposite parties left the station, as such, they could not be served on them. The notice is also published in Telugu Daily news paper against the opposite parties. Even then they have not appeared before the Forum to defend their case. As service is held sufficient, they were set exparte.
The complainant filed her chief affidavit apart from filing documents vide Ex.A1 to A7. Ex.A1 is the quotation for Schiller AT-1 ECG Machine. Ex.A2 is the quotation for Schiller AT-2 ECG Machine providing terms and conditions. Ex.A3 is the bill raised by 2nd opposite party for Rs.1,04,000/-. Ex.A4 is the legal notice dt.03-08-07. Ex.A5 to A7 are returned postal covers of the legal notices sent to them.
The affidavit on record along with documents clearly established the fact that the complainant had purchased two ECG machines at the cost offered by the opposite parties and later two machines have developed technical problem and became non functional even during the warranty period itself. The first machine was attended and rectified by giving some service. Even then there was no improvement in its functioning and ultimately it was taken away with a promise to substitute with a new one. In the meanwhile second machine also developed problem and became non functional. For that service was done by the 1st opposite party and at that time also they promised to send new machine for the first one and also provide stand by machine. There after neither the opposite party nor 2nd and 3rd opposite party have complied with the demand. The complainant who appears to be a practicing Doctor in diabetes suffered lot for non functioning of machine in her clinic. Many reminders made by her proved futile. At last she was constrained to give legal notice demanding new machine or in alternative to pay cost of machine of Rs.46,000/- with damages and interest amounting to Rs.30,000/- but there was no response. The opposite parties got returned the legal notice. It appears that they have woundup their business. As the opposite parties have supplied manufacturing defect ECG machine AT-1 at the cost of Rs.46,000/- and having admitted the same and promised to replace with a new one did not comply the demand, as such the complainant is justified in claiming back the cost of machine including damages suitably. The damages towards inconvenience and mental agony is considered to the tune of Rs.5000/- and cost of litigation Rs.2000/-.
Accordingly, the complaint is allowed in part in terms indicated below:
1.The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.46,000/- towards cost of ECG machine AT-1 to the complainant. Further they are directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards damages for the inconvenience and mental agony.
2.The opposite parties are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- towards cost of this litigation.
3.The amounts ordered above shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, otherwise it will carry interest @ 9% p.a. on the whole sum.