ENDOLITE INDIA LIMITED Vs. REENA AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON having supplied a highly defective artificial limb known as ESK IP + system causing mental and physical discomfort and agony to the respondent, the appellant has been held guilty for supplying defective goods and also for deficiency in service in not providing repairs to the defective limb and directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation for mental agony, torture and mental and physical harassment and inconvenience besides refund of Rs. 1,75,235 towards cost of limb and Rs. 30,015 towards its repairs.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) RELEVANT facts leading to the impugned order, in brief, are that left foot of respondent was amputated over the knee on 25.8.1998. She consulted number of doctors/organizations for fitment of artificial leg including M/s. Endolite India Ltd. through its Director Bdg. V.K. Bajaj. On their representation that the artificial leg provided by them were of highest quality and did not require replacement for life, the respondent agreed for fitment of artificial leg. Respondent visited the appellant for installation of artificial leg and after stay of about ten days at New Delhi an artificial leg was assembled and fitted on her leg on 12.5.1999 for which the appellant charged her Rs. 1,75,235. Within two months she faced problem and contacted appellants who called her to New Delhi. The artificial leg earlier fitted was too big as a result of which she had to use bigger shoes than her actual size. On 17.9.1999, the appellants changed the socket and charged Rs. 8,765 vide invoice (Ann. III) though at the time of fitment appellants had represented that no charges would be recovered for any adjustment, rectification or manufacturing defects. The new socket prepared by Dr. Gautam Jain of appellant No. 1 organization had to be repaired again on 12.5.2000 as poor quality material was used. The respondent was made to pay Rs. 5,000 for the repair. She pointed out to the appellant that the nuts were rusted and the repair carried out was of poor quality. She requested for change of rusted nuts but her request was ignored. The artificial leg again started giving trouble for which she had to visit the appellant at New Delhi for repairing of the socket and the leg. In the month of August 2002, some defect occurred in the knee point of artificial leg as a result of which the respondent could not walk and fell down injuring herself and when she complained to the appellant she was again called to New Delhi and a new socket was prepared and artificial leg was repaired for which the respondent was asked to pay Rs. 16,000 but she paid Rs. 10,000. Within 45 days the repaired leg again started giving trouble on which she contacted the appellant and she was again called to New Delhi and informed that earlier the repairs were done manually and now the repairs would be done through machine. In the meanwhile the respondent got married and was serving as a teacher in a college at Lucknow and she could not take frequent leave to go to the office of the appellant at New Delhi for getting the defective artificial leg repaired. Since she was facing problem frequently at short intervals she requested for change of the artificial leg but she was promised that if she visits them they would carry out permanent repairs. Respondent with her husband reached New Delhi on 12.7.2004 and was made to deposit Rs. 12,000. In order to prepare new socket her measurement was taken on 13.7.2004 which was wrong. She had to stay at New Delhi for four days more and again her measurement was taken but Dr. Tambuk of appellant organization failed to fit the socket, on which the respondent complained to Bdg. V.K. Bajaj but Bdg. Bajaj allegedly misbehaved with her and used abusive language. The respondent returned to Lucknow without repairs of the artificial leg. Then she lodged a complaint with National Commission for Women and notice was issued to the appellant and the appellant vide its letter dated 7.12.2004 required the respondent to visit them for repairs of the artificial leg. She visited the appellants for repairs of the artificial leg but she was shocked when she was told that no repairs would be carried out unless she tendered apology for filing a complaint with National Commission for Women. She returned back without repair of the artificial leg. Alleging deficiency in service in supplying defective product, the respondent has sought refund of the cost of the artificial leg along with interest @ 18%. She has sought directions to the appellant to pay her Rs. 36,015 which the appellant had charged for carrying out repairs. She has also sought payment of Rs. 1,50,000 the amount spent by her in visiting the office of the appellant on several occasions for repair of the defective artificial leg and Rs. 11 lacs have been sought as compensation for mental and physical harassment.