D S AULAKH Vs. SAVITA BENJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant present. Nobody appears for O. P. On the last date of hearing 26.11.2002 also Counsel for O. P. did not appear. History of the case shows that O. P. does not take any interest in the case so we proceeded to decide it ex parte.

(2.) Case of the complainant is that complainant is the Dental Surgeon. He purchased one set of economy model dental chair with attached dental unit having Halogen light with imported reflector instrument tray, spittoon with water system and one No. DCJ Control Box. Besides above he also purchased Pentographic foot operated dental chair with attached unit having Halogen light with imported reflector, instrument tray, spitton with automatic water system. Three way syringe, Air rolor control with air rotor handpiece, micrometer (Saltlee) with straight and contra angle handpiece, noiseless air compressor and Dr. 's Stool one set, for Rs.1,03,500/- with a warranty of two years. The delivery of the articles and its installation was made on 9.7.1995. The order placed for these articles by the complainant was on 21.1.1995.

(3.) However, soon the delivery was made within 2 months of its functioning, the dental chair went out of order and manufacturing defects were found in it. Attention of the O. P. was invited. He sent one Mr. Prahlad who found manufacturing defect in it and could not make the chair functional. Again the O. P. was asked to remove the defects. He sent Vidhya Basker along with his team of engineers to the hospital of complainant to remove the defects. The said engineer removed two most important components for replacing and executed a receipt dated 14.5.1996 in favour of complainant. It is being alleged that thereafter neither the components were replaced nor the chair was made functional. Complainant sent notice dated 27.7.1998 to the O. P. but they sent some engineer to examine the unit and promised to replace the chair but all in vain, hence the complaint. Notice was issued to the O. P. O. P. did not appear nor filed objections within statutory period notwithstanding 15 days grace was given to her to file the objections. Objections were long after placed on record through the clerk of this Commission. The Commission did not endorse those objections for having been filed. Evidence of complainant was recorded on 8/2001. In August, 2000 the O. P. filed an application with the prayer that his objections be placed on record and he be allowed to cross-examine the witness of the complainant. The application was disposed of by interim order dated 8.1.2001. The request of the O. P. was not accepted to the extent that objections were placed on record but the O. P. was allowed to cross-examine the witness of complainant on the payment of Rs.1,000/- as costs. Witness of the complainant were recalled. They were cross-examined by the O. P. O. P. did not produce any evidence.