PARUL URESH DALAL Vs. INDIAN DENTAL TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant is a practicing Dental Surgeon having her clinic at 195 Manekbag Society, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad. The opposite party is designated as Indian Dental Traders and are selling and repairing dental equipments themselves or through their agents at Bombay. It appears that the complainant had purchased one Dental X-ray Chirana Mobile Model for Rs.18,700/- on 31.7.1989 from the opposite party which was delivered by the opposite party through Saurashtra Roadways at Ahmedabad. The complainant appears to have paid the cost for delivering the X-ray machine at Ahmedabad.

(2.) The complainant has also purchased one Airotor Hand Piece in June 1 (?) from M/s. Bhagadia and Sons at Ahmedabad who are the dealers of the opposite party. The Airotor Hand Piece (hereinafter referred to as Hand piece) was not giving proper service and, therefore, the same was sent to the opposite party for repairing on March 29, 90 for check up and repairs. Thereafter the X-ray machine was found defective and required repairs and, therefore, the complainant sent the said machine for repairs on January 10, 91 to Bombay to the opposite party. Though the Hand piece was sent in March 90, the same was not returned by the opposite party. The complainant had sent Rs.520/- to the opposite party towards reparation charges as demanded by them. The Hand piece having not been returned even though it was promised to be repaired within 10 to 15 days, the complainant sent reminders dated 29.3.90, 6.4.90, 23.5.90, 4.6.90, 17.7.90, 17.8.90 and lastly on 25.8.90 and ultimately the reply was received and the Hand piece was returned on 26.9.90 and on trial it was found unrepaired and, therefore, the complainant sent the Hand piece back within 3 days again for repairs. So far the X-ray machine is concerned the opposite party has not repaired the same till the filing of the complaint.

(3.) The complainant therefore served a notice through her advocate to the opposite party dated 27.3.91 complaining that she had purchased the X- ray machine for Rs.18,700/- from the opposite party and she further stated that the Hand piece has been sent for repairs again on 6.6.90 for which the complainant had paid the reparation charges of Rs.520/- in advance. She further informed that the value of the Hand piece on the date of notice was Rs.6,000/-. She had therefore alleged that on account of the negligence of the opposite party she was facing difficulties in her profession without these two machines and inspite of repeated reminders the opposite party had failed and neglected to return the same to the complainant.