LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD Vs. POPHALE NURSING HOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of both the above titled appeals as they arise out of the same Order delivered by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra at New Bombay in a complaint registered on their file at No. 55 of 1991. The facts are that present Respondent No. 1 herein M/s. Pophale Nursing Home (for short complainant) had filed the complaint against present appellant M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (for short the appellant) and M/s. Eastland Business Corporation (for short Corporation) who are appellants in appeal No. 212 of 1991. They had been arrayed as Opposite Parties No. 1 and No. 2 respectively in the complaint. Accordingly to allegation of the complainant. According to allegation of the complainant, it was an Institution (wrongly described by the State Commission as Public Trust Institution), having nursing home facility with general ward. VIP rooms and other air conditioned rooms. It was a sort of poly clinic with facilities of diagnostic, X -Ray Department, Laboratory, Operation Theatre and Physiotherapy Department. The poly clinic which include Surgeons, Physicians Gynaec Surgeons, Dental Surgeons, Eye Specialists etc. are attached to it. A need was felt to connect the Laboratory, X -Ray Department, Operation Theatre and all the Specialists including the Emergency Doctor, Operation Theatre Nurse and Office with each other through sixteen extensions of telephone. With this purpose, the complainant contacted the Corporation, who is the dealer of the appellant and was given an order for installation of ELTEX -10R, Electronic Telephone System. The full amount was paid to the Corporation in two instalments. The last instalment was paid vide cheque dated 13th December, 1990. The Nursing Home had warned the Corporation that the whole responsibility of complete installation and satisfactory working would be of their organisation to which they had agreed. The Corporation started installation and handed over the system to the Telephone Operator of the complainant on 4th January, 1991. Soon thereafter it was noticed that calls from outside were received on the internal phone numbers, but could not make outside calls as the system had come one day. The Corporation wasinformed about this fact on 5th January, 1991 by means of a telephone call from outside as well as through a letter. The Corporation acknowledged that letter on 10th January, 1991 and thereafter their mechanic came and fiddled with the machine but could not undo the fault and the dislocation went on for a long time, i.e., for about a month. The normal work of the Institution & Nursing Home could not be carried on till the end of January, 1991. On 29th January, 1991, the complainant wrote a letter to the appellant informing them of the defect in the system and also told them to take effective action. The appellant deputed their Service Engineers, Mr. Sandesh Areka, who changed the box and set the things right and made the system workable. In this complaint, the main grievance of the complainant is about un -satisfactory service rendered by the internal telephone system till it was changed on 7.2.1991. The complainant Nursing Home was also carrying on two national programmes, one on family planning and other one on immunisation. According to the complainant, on account of the defective installation, a lot of inconvenience and mental agony was caused to the complainant Rs. 50,000/ - was claimed as compensation on the ground that there was defect in the rendering of service.

(2.) THE present appellant filed a counter affidavit. They took a preliminary objection that the complainant was not a 'consumer' as defined in Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. They further pleaded that they were always willing to actively associate in the process of stabilising the system by a process of evaluation, but the complainant did not allow any such time for such activities and barely a day after the system handed over, it wrote a letter on 5th January, 1991. Adoption the policy that the customer is right, they responded to all the grievances of the complainant, however, minor those were in nature. The complainant has not referred to the efforts made by them and the Corporation in the right perspective and it has given a distorted version only to substantiate the complaint. As admitted by the complainant, the appellants Service engineer came and changed the box and made the system workable. The system was found to be working satisfactorily as endorsed by the complainants personnel. A joint inspection by the opposite parties was organised on 31st May, 1991 and the system was found working properly. They have not shown any indifferent attitude nor their approach has been inefficient. They are entitled to costs for having been dragged in the proceedings by the complainant un -necessarily.

(3.) THE State Commission held that the Electronic Telephone system, when it was supplied in the complainant had inherent defects and there was deficiency in the rendering of service by an appellants parties. As a result of which, the complainant had to suffer inconvenience during the period of one month which must have affected its income. They held that both the opposite parties to the complaint were liable jointly and severally to pay compensation on the complainant. The total compensation assessed was Rs. 38,000/ - out of which Rs. 5,000/ - was made payable to Dr. Pophale, who is the proprietor of the Nursing Home, Rs. 18,000/ - as loss to various consultants and Rs. 15,000/ - as loss to the Nursing Home.