V S BATTU Vs. AARTI GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the complainant's appeal filed against order dated 21.11.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] in Complaint Case No.345 of 2001.

(2.) The complaint was filed against Ms. Aarti Gupta, Proprietor, Times Halthcare, Chandigarh; M/s. Elite Orgo Chem (Pvt.) Ltd. , New Mumbai and M/s. G. N. Resound (formerly Danavox), Denmark. Out of the three O. Ps. who are respondents before us, only respondent No.1 Miss Aarti Gupta contested the complaint case filed by the appellant-Col. V. S. Battu, B. D. S. , M. D. S. resident of House No.55, Phase VII, Mohali. The complainant was working as a Professor in Periodontics in D. A. V. (C) Dental College, Yamuna Nagar. Col. V. S. Battu was having some hearing problem. When he consulted respondent No.1 - Ms. Aarti Gupta, Proprietor of Times Halthcare, Chandigarh who was dealing with hearing aids, the complainant purchased a hearing aid from her, which was of Danavox Make, Model 131, CD, Sr. No.08263 for use in his right ear on 13.3.2001 and paid a sum of Rs.15,800/-. The said hearing aid carried a warranty of one year from the date of its purchase and the warranty was valid up to 12.3.2002. The invoice of the hearing aid (Annexure C-1) and the cash receipt (Annexure C-2) were issued by M/s. Elite Orgo Chem (Pvt.) Ltd. , New Mumbai. The hearing aid was manufactured by the O. P. No.3-M/s. G. N. Resound, Denmark.

(3.) The appellant had problem with his hearing aid machine right from the day he purchased the same and as such, he visited the business premises of respondent No.1 on 4th, 11th and 19th April, 2001. The respondent No.1 advised the complainant that it being a new machine, it would take some time for him to get used to hear through it. However, the hearing did not improve. The respondent No.1 took over the hearing aid from the complainant on 30.4.2001 for repairs. Thereafter, the complainant visited the business premises of respondent No.1 number of times to try the hearing aid but there was no perceptible improvement in the performance of the hearing aid. The respondent No.1 issued challan (Annexure C-4) about receiving the hearing aid from the complainant for repairs. The complainant was told that he might be having some wax in his ear, which might have hampered the proper hearing. The complainant also got his ear cleaned and waxed by Dr. Pankaj Arora an ENT specialist on 28.5.2001 vide prescription (Annexure C-5) and went to the business premises of respondent No.1 for trying the hearing aid, which still did not improve. This led the complainant to ask for the refund of the price of the hearing aid, which respondent No.1 initially avoided to do so. The complainant served a legal notice dated 16.6.2001 (Annexure C-6) requesting for the refund of the cost of the hearing aid and also compensation. The respondent No.1 in the reply (Annexure C-9) denied the allegations and did not refund the price of the hearing aid and refused to compensate him.