District Consumer Commission Kupwara Holds Cyclops Techno Med Pharmaceutical Distributors And Philips India Liable For Deficiency In Service

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kupwara comprising Peerzada Qousar Hussain (President) and Ms Nyla Yaseen (Member) held Cyclops Techno Med Pharmaceutical Distributors and Philips India Pvt Ltd for selling a defective Ultrasound Sonography Machine to the Complainant. The Bench held that it was the duty of the Opposite Parties to ensure that the machine sold was free from any defects and if at all any defects were reflected at a later stage, they were bound to cure such defects or provide due resolution. Facts of the Case The Complainant started a diagnostic centre named Star Scan Point in his village Villigam, Handwara, Jammu and Kashmir. He purchased an Ultrasound Sonography Machine from Cyclops Techno Med Pharmaceutical Distributors, Balgraden Karanagar, paying Rs.15 lacs. After installation, the Complainant noticed problems with the quality of the machine such as issues with resolution of images and other defects. Since the machine was within warranty, the Complainant approached Cyclops Techno Med Pharmaceutical Distributors to seek resolution. He asked for due service or refund from the Opposite Party, however, no response was provided to him. Subsequently, the Complainant contacted the Cyclops Techno Med Pharmaceutical Distributors frequently through Whatsapp and Email asking for a solution but according to him he was only dragged from pillar to post without being offered any genuine help. Since there was no resolution provided to the Complainant, he approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kupwara by filing a consumer complaint. The lawyer for the Complainant submitted before the Commission that the USG machine started malfunctioning right after its installation causing the Complainant huge loss and mental agony. It was stated that the Opposite Parties deliberately caused mental trouble to the Complainant. Moreover, since the machine was within warranty, the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties asking for a solution but the same was not provided to him, the Counsel submitted. The Opposite Party No.2, Phillips India Ltd. was proceeded against ex-parte as it was unrepresented. Cyclops Techno Med Pharmaceutical Distributors (Opposite Party No.1) contended that it was merely an authorized distributor of Philips Company and not a dealer. It was submitted that the machine was installed in presence of the Complainant and was working fine. Moreover, only an amount of Rs.13 lacs was paid by the Complainant and the rest of the amount was still pending. Furthermore, no Complaint was filed against Opposite Party No.2 as per Opposite Party No.1. It was stated that the Complainant filed the Complaint to retain the pending amount of Rs. 2 lacs. In addition, Opposite Party No.1 contended that there was no defect in the machine and the machine did not suffer form any malfunctioning. It was further stated that the Warranty was offered for one year only and it had already expired. A witness produced by the Opposite Party submitted that they were only concerned with dealership and providing services was not in their domain. Findings of the Commission The Commission after perusing the documents and the written arguments advanced by the Counsels for Parties observed that the Complainant had approached the Opposite Party No.1, however, no resolution was provided, and the Complainant was only asked to move places to get the issue resolved with no fruitful outcome. Even after the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party through Whatsapp and Email, there was no response from Opposite Party No.1. The Commission went through the installation Report which did not mention the name of the Engineer who installed the machine. Moreover, even though as per the report the installation was successful, the machine started showing defects later and therefore the argument regarding successful installation could not sustain, the Commission observed. The Commission cited the decision of the NCDRC in Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt Ltd. versus Dr. Sunil J Shah wherein the Petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.8,50,000 to the Complainant against the return of a machine along with 18% interest and Rs. 30,000 in compensation and litigation expenses. Accordingly, holding the Opposite Parties liable for deficiency in service as per Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, the Commission observed that it was the duty of the Opposite Parties to ensure that the machine sold to the Complainant was free from defects. Further, on being informed about the defects, the Opposite Parties were responsible for providing due services to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties were directed to either replace the machine or refund Rs.13 lacs to the Complainant along with an interest of 8% from the date of filing of the Complaint till the final order. The Opposite Parties were further directed to pay...

District Consumer Commission Kupwara Holds Cyclops Techno Med Pharmaceutical Distributors And Philips India Liable For Deficiency In Service

Syed Nazarat Fatima

Tags