DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
North 24 Pgs., BARASAT
C.C. No./154/2021
Date of Filing Date of Admission Date of Disposal
19.08.2021 08.11.2021 24.05.2024
Complainant/s:- | LOVELY SAHA, of Santasree House, No. 2, Hridaypur, P.O & P.S. Barasat, District – North 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700127. And also at P.O. & P.S. – Chailengta, Dhalai, Tripura, Pin – 799273. -Vs- |
Opposite Party/s:- | - The Director, ENDOLITE INDIA LIMITED, having its registered office at A – 4, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase – 1, New Delhi – 110028.
- The Manager, ENDOLITE INDIA LIMITED, having its Kolkata Clinic at, 47 – A, Diamondharbour Road, near Taratala Crossing & DAV School, Kolkata – 700038.
|
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Daman Prosad Biswas……….President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu…………………. Member.
JUDGMENT /FINAL ORDER
Complainant above named filed this complaint against the aforesaid Opposite Parties praying for direction to refund the amount of Rs. 1,03,425/-, appointment of expert, compensation amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-, litigation cost amounting to Rs. 30,000/- and other reliefs.
He alleged that he is an old customer of O.P No. 2. O.P No. 2 knew the Complainant’s medical history. In the clinical summary dated 27/12/2018 O.P No. 2 mentioned that the case of the Complainant suffers with a history of right side polio with knee contracture but flexible and foot cavus. Complainant used KAFO since long to control instabilities in the knee and lower limbs by maintaining proper alignment and controlling motion. Subsequently, Complainant’s old KAFO was torned. Being convinced by the representative of O.P No. 2, Complainant was agreed to pay or use new upgraded KAFO product. Complainant paid Rs. 1,03,425/- to the O.P No. 2. O.P No. 2 issued one tax invoice dated 31/12/2018 in favour of the complainant. Thereafter O.P No. 2 sent one prosthetics namely Baisakhi Kundu for the said purpose.
But unfortunately since installation of the said new KAFO Complainant started suffering so many issues due to fitting problems were there and weight of the new KAFO. Having no other alternative Complainant, his relatives, well-wishers sent email to the O.P to sort out the problem but O.P cunningly failed and neglected to take any care. O.P did not take any steps to refund the paid amount of said KAFO amounting to Rs. 1,03,425/-. Hence, the Complainant filed this case praying for aforesaid relief.
O.P No. 1 and 2 appeared in this record and filed W/V. They denied the entire allegations of the Complainant made in petition of complaint. They prayed for dismissal of the case.
During Trial Complainant filed a petition praying for treating the petition of complaint as affidavit in chief. Said petition has allowed. O.P No. 1 and 2 filed separate affidavit in chief.
On the date of hearing argument, Complainant was absent without any steps. He did not file BNA. O.P No. 1 and 2 filed BNA.
During hearing, only Ld. Advocate for the O.P No. 1 and 2 made his submission.
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C.C. No./154/2021
Decisions with Reasons:-
We have heard the Ld. Advocate for the O.P No. 1 and 2. Perused the petition of complaint, W/V filed by O.Ps, affidavit-in-chief filed by the O.P No. 1 and 2, documents filed by the Complainant, documents filed by the O.P and BNA filed by the O.Ps.
During hearing Ld. Advocate for the O.P No. 1 & 2 argued that Complainant lodged this case before this Commission with false allegation.
He further argued that there is no defect in the aforesaid product.
On perusal of record we find that it is admitted position that O.P No. 1 and 2 had received Rs. 20,000/- on 14/08/2018, Rs. 30,000/- on 16/08/2018 and Rs. 53,425/- on 27/12/2018. Complainant further alleged that he in total paid Rs. 1,03,425/-.
It is the allegation of the Complainant that unfortunately since installation of said new KAFO Complainant started suffering so many issues as lots of fitting problems were there in the new KAFO and weight of the new KAFO was not at all decreased in comparing to the old one and as a result Complainant flet problem.
On perusal of record we find that Complainant submitted image of the said KAFO which indicates that said KAFO was procured for fitting in the leg of the Complainant. If it is found that said KAFO is not fitting properly in the leg of the Complainant definitely it will cause the problem to use the same.
We think that it was the duty of the O.P No. 1 and 2 to take necessary steps for proper fitting of the aforesaid KAFO but it has been alleged that same has not yet been done by the O.P No. 1 and 2.
On careful perusal of record and the documents submitted by O.P No. 1 and 2 we find that O.P No. 1 and 2 did not take proper steps for removal of defect of aforesaid KAFO which amounts to deficiency in service.
On perusal of record we find that Complainant is the consumer and O.Ps are the service provider.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, we are of the firmed view that Complainant has able to established his grievance in part by sufficient documents beyond reasonable doubt and he is entitled to some reliefs.
In the result, present case succeeds.
Hence,
It is
Ordered:-
That the present case be and the same vide no. CC/154/2021 is allowed on contest against the O.P.Nos. 1 and 2with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by O.P Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the Complainant.
O.P No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally are directed to take necessary steps for fitting of the aforesaid KAFO to the satisfaction of the Complainant, so that Complainant can easily use the same properly within 45 days from this date failing which the Complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case no order is passed in respect of Compensation.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated and Corrected by me
President
Member President
