LALITA BADHWAR Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR KUMRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly the facts of the case are, that respondent No.2 M/s. Delhi Hospital Supply Corporation is carrying on the business of Hospital and Medical Equipment supplies in Delhi and respondent No.1 is its President. The complainant purchased one Karl Storz End vision Camera from the respondent on 13.5.91 for a consideration of Rs.2,69,036.25 (Rupees Two Lacs Sixty Nine Thousands Thirty Six and Twenty Five Paise only ). It is pleaded, that the complainant is invited to national and international conferences to deliver lectures and read papers on her research on the new technique in pelvis copy surgery and the camera was purchased by her for research work mainly.

(2.) The camera carried a warranty for a period of one year. However, it developed defects in late Feb.1992 and went out of order on 10.3.92. On her complaint to the respondents their Technical Manager, Mr. Surinder Mehta examined it and said that it was required to be sent back to Germany for repair/replacement. He later took delivery of the camera for replacement/repairs, on 27th March 1992. In the end of April 92 respondent No. l informed her that the Camera had manufacturing defects and therefore, the model had been withdrawn from the market and she would be provided with a different model (Endovision 9050 from M/s. Karl Store, Germany) at no extra cost within 20 days. It is further pleaded that inspite of the assurances that a service camera would soon be sent to her to tie over the warranty period, it was supplied late but that Camera also developed the same defects after some time.

(3.) It is averred that the new model sought to be given to the complainant suffers from inherent defects and it is not meant for sale in U. S. A. , Europe and other advanced countries. Consequently, she has claimed for the refund of the price of the camera with interest on that amount @ 18% p. a. , escalation in price of the Camera and compensation for mental agony and suffering.