S M SETHNA Vs. ANIL CHOKSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this complainant alleged that a Konica Automatic Processor Model QX-40 for processing X-ray and sonography films was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party was defective.

(2.) THE complainant alleged that on 4-10-1990 the O.P. 1 sent a proforma invoice for Rs. 44,000/- dated 1-10-1990 from Konica Corporation, Tokyo, Japan vide Exhibit B-I and B-II. On 31-12-1990, the opposite party informed the complainant that the machine has been shipped for delivery. On 15-1-1991, the opposite party (O.P.) No. 1 again informed the complainant to extend the date for delivery as goods were not in stock for Indian Market and they would produce the machine in March, 1991. THE relevant X-Ray in DID-II. THE complainant had also paid Rs. 4,000/- as service charges for the import of the said machine on 24-4-1991 vide Ex.E. THE complainant cleared the custom duties on 21-5-1991 by paying Rs. 82,590/- vide Ex.F. When Carton was opened, the complainant found that the machine was inspected on November, 1987 indicating that it was an old machine. After installation on 29-5-1991 by O.P. 1, the machine was found defective and not in proper working order. It was accordingly informed to the opposite party by letter dated 9-6-1991, followed by the reminder on 16-7-1991 vide Ex.I and I-a. THE complainant, therefore, claimed replacement of the machine by 1991 Model suited to Indian conditions and also expenses incurred by the complainant in transporting the said machine.

(3.) IN support of his allegation, the complainant filed his affidavit dated 7-4-1992 verifying the allegations made in the complaint. Since the opposite party did not controvert the allegations in the complaint despite the notice, we accept the allegations of the complainant as correct.