PICKER INDIA LTD Vs. JAMAL ARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT was the opposite party before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa (hereinafter referred to as State Commission), where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

(2.) THE basic facts leading to filing the complaint, as alleged in complaint, were that the respondent/complainant who is a doctor by profession, decided to purchase a Laparoscopy Set, Type-III, Model 3, from the appellant/opposite party for use in her operation theatre to give better service to the patient. Invoice was provided by the Regional Sales Manager Mr. Ghosh. The equipment was supplied. But it was the case of the complainant that certain parts such as Silicon Tube, Carbon Dioxide Cylinder and Spatula were never supplied despite having received full payment by the appellant. The complainant approached their Kolkata Office but when the complainant's representative reached to Kolkata Office to find out about the details of supply of these parts, he came empty handed as the appellant's office had shifted its known address to some other place without giving out the new address. In such circumstances, the matter was taken up with the appellant's head office at Delhi requesting for re-sale the machine and refund the complainant's money with interest as the equipment was not demonstrated within two months from the installations and Kolkata Office has been closed. It is only on 22. 2. 1997 that the Regional Kolkata Office informed them about the new address in which they also informed that on 10. 2. 1997 they have sent silicon tube through one Dr. Samal of Bhubaneswar. According to the complainant an assurance was given that the appellant's engineer Mr. Arijit Ghosh will meet the complainant on 26. 2. 1997 and give the demonstration of the machine. No one turned up on that date. As per the complainant Mr. Ghosh informed her on phone to arrange a patient on whom he will demonstrate. The demonstration was given on 4. 4. 1997. During the demonstration of the machine CO2 'insulfulator' did not work, causing a great damage and loss of credibility. This CO2 'insulfulator', as advised by Mr. Ghosh, Engineer of the appellant company, was sent for replacement on 5. 4. 1997 which was received by the appellant on 7. 4. 1997. Till the date of filing of the complaint this CO2 'insulfulator' was not replaced. It is in these circumstances, that a complaint was filed praying for taking back the machine and refund the money with interest @ 18% p. a. along with cost of CO2 Cylinder, Colour TV and loss of credibility and litigation cost. The matter was contested by the appellant before the State Commission on several grounds. The State Commission after considering all the grounds and perusal of material on record allowed the complaint in following terms :

(3.) LATER on an application made by the complainant, the State Commission by order dated 6. 9. 2001 passed the following order :