SHARDUL NANA CHANDANE KALIDAS CHANDANE, TENEMENT NO. A/28, PLOT NO Vs. CHANDRAJEET & 5 ORS. ADD : 5, RUKHMANI NIWAS GOKHALE, SOCIETY, CROSS ROAD PAREL , MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed u/s 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 18.10.2013, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in FA No. A/1612/08, Nana Rs.Chandane (since deceased represented by his legal heirs) Vs. Chandrajeet & Ors. , vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order passed by the District Forum on 30.06.2008, allowing the consumer complaint filed by the present petitioners, was upheld.

(2.) The facts of the case are that Rukmini Chandane wife of the original complainant Nana L. Chandane was suffering from a sleep disorder called Sleep Apnea syndrome, which made it stressful for her to breathe. She was advised by the treating Doctor P.P. Prabhudesai to use the CPAP (Continuous Positive Air Pressure) machine. The machine was first installed by the OPs on trial basis on 09.01.2003. The purchase was confirmed on 16.01.2003 and a total sum of 45,000.00 was paid for the machine to the OPs in instalments of 30,000.00 paid on 17.01.2003 and 15,000.00 paid on 20.01.2003. As per the version of the complainant, the machine was not functioning properly since the very beginning. The complainants lodged a complaint with the OP supplier who changed some parts of the machine on 08.04.2003. It is alleged that the wife of the complainant became more sick due to the faulty machine and had to be admitted in Holy Spirit Hospital from 17.04.2003 to 20.04.2003. The machine again started giving trouble in Aug. and Sept. 2003, whereupon, the OPs replaced the said machine with some other old machine. The wife of the complainants died on 29.09.2003. The consumer complaint was then filed by Nana Rs.Chandane and one of his daughters Bharti N. Chandane alleging that the OPs had indulged in grave negligence and deficiency in service towards the complainants by supplying the faulty machine and hence, compensation should be awarded to them. The complaint was first filed before the State Commission, but it was returned by them vide order dated 10.02.2005 for filing the same before the forum, having the necessary pecuniary jurisdiction. Thereafter, the complaint was filed before the District Forum and the same was disposed of vide order dated 30.06.2008, vide which the OPs were asked to refund a sum of 45,000.00 to the complainant jointly and severally and the machine was to be returned by the complainants to the OPs.

(3.) In their reply filed before the District Forum, the OPs denied the allegations against them and stated that the machine was not old or defective. The OPs also stated that the complaints made from time to time were attended to properly and certain parts of the machine were replaced. However, since the complainants were not satisfied, they replaced the machine with a stand-by machine. The OPs denied that they were liable to pay the amount of compensation as demanded in the consumer complaint.