State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M.P. Khan vs Tarun Telecom Enterprises on 6 May, 2011
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 06-05-2011 Case No. FA-08/078 (Arising from the order dated 30-10-2008 passed in case No. 1137/2006 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum (North), Tis Hazari, Delhi) MR. M.P. KHAN, - APPELLANT S/o Mr. Nausha Khan, R/O 1883, Mohalla Qabristan, Masjid Hauz Wali, Turkman Gate, Delhi - 110006 Versus 1. M/S TARUN TELECOM ENTERPRISES, Through its Manager/CEO, D-26, Kamla Nagar, New Delhi 2. TVC SKYSHOP LTD., Through its Chairman/Managing Director/ Concerned Official, TVC House, Daftary Road, Malad (E), Mumbai 400097 - RESPONDENT CORAM : MS KANWAL INDER - Presiding Member MS SALMA NOOR - Member 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? MS KANWAL INDER ORDER
1. Vide this appeal, the appellant is assailing order of District Forum (North) dated 30th October 2008 whereby on his complaint the OP/Respondent was held deficient in service for not taking back the belt from the appellant/complainant and was directed to refund him Rs.1,500/- on return of the belt, besides paying him Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost. Compensation and cost have already been paid to the appellant by the Respondent who is ready to refund Rs.1,500/- also on return of the belt by the appellant as ordered.
During hearing, the appellant admitted that the belt was still with him.
2. Vide this appeal the appellant is praying for enhancement of quantum of award to Rs.50,000/- with cost. The appeal is being contested by the respondent who has filed reply.
3. We have heard the appellant and his AR in person and Shri Sanjeev Bajaj, Counsel for the respondent and have gone through the record.
4. There is no dispute regarding the facts that on seeing the advertisement, the appellant purchased Sauna Belt, product of Respondent No.2 from Respondent No.1 for reducing fattened belly for Rs.1,500/-
vide Invoice cum Delivery Challan dated 15-06-2006 with instruction manual. After using the belt on that day, the appellant reported to the respondents for having got burns on his stomach in general and on his scar of the stitches in particular for which he took medical treatment and sent a legal notice dated 29-07-2006 to the respondents. He was offered Rs.5,000/- as full and final settlement which he refused being too low. On his filing complaint, again the same offer was made which he declined.
5. Case pleaded by the appellant is that he was assured that use of the said belt on scar of stitches on his abdomen was safe but it resulted in severe burns injuries and developed boils (Chhale) for which he took treatment from two local doctors but there was no relief in pain and wound.
On 26-06-2006 he went to L.N.J.P. Hospital where he was operated upon. The doctors removed a big piece of rotten skin from the effected portion of his belly to save other portion of belly. The said operation was so serious that the doctors had to put stitches inside the skin also. After one hour long successful operation, the doctors again put several stitches on outer skin of his stomach. The appellant incurred huge expenses in medical treatment including medicine and post surgical care by doctors and paramedical staff, special diet, making telephone calls to the respondent beside harassment, torture, pain, misguidance etc. On these allegations he has prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for injuries, harassment, suffering, pain, anguishment, agony, loss of time, loss of money, loss of health etc.
6. After completion of trial and hearing the parties, Ld. District Forum directed the OP/respondent to refund Rs.1500/- to the complainant on return of the belt and to pay him compensation of Rs.2,000/- with cost Rs.1,000/- holding that as the complainant had asked OP to take back the belt but the OP has not taken it back, on that account the OP is deficient in service. Regarding other allegations, it has been observed that there is nothing on record to show that surgery has been undergone by the complainant, no record of the OT has been placed, nor there is any record of admission for surgery in the hospital and there is only OPD card which also does not show that the surgery has been done. Ld. District Forum has held that it is admitted fact that the appellant had undergone surgery earlier and there were scar of stitches on his stomach before the belt was purchased and he has not filed any documents to show that burns and boils were caused by the single use of that belt.
7. On making query in this connection, the appellant has referred to only one document i.e. photocopy of his OPD card which indicate that on 7th July 2006 he was called to minor OT on the following date, where on he gave willingness for surgery under LA.
Thereafter two words are recorded which the appellant could not read out or explain but have been referred to in appeal as Examination and Surgery LA and the appellant has been advised two medicines. The appellant explained during hearing that he was taken to minor OT where pus was drained out from his boils. Thus the allegation of having been operated for one long hour, putting several stitches inside and outer skin on his stomach, post surgical care by doctors and paramedical staff etc, loss of time, loss of money are all exaggerated ones for making out claim for Rs.50,000/- which all remain unsubstantiated. There is no proof on record that the belt supplied was defective. It is significant to note that as per his own pleas, the appellant was provided with instruction manual with the belt. His submission of being unable to read and write English does not come to his rescue as he could have taken assistance of someone, as has been done by him while serving legal notice, filing the case, pleadings, evidence, appeal which are all in English. Thus there is some omission on his part to use the belt on oral assurance of the delivery man. Since his OPD card shows that he had to take treatment from doctors/hospital including in Minor OT for the boils as stated by him and to spend on medicines, he is entitled to be compensated on that account as well. It was perhaps for all these reasons that the respondent had offered Rs.5,000/- to the appellant at initial stage. Keeping in view totality of the circumstances, the appellant is further held entitled to compensation of Rs.2,000/- on account of injury suffered by him by use of that belt. Therefore compensation of Rs.2,000/- awarded by the District Forum is enhanced to Rs.4,000/-
8. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order is modified to the extent that compensation is enhanced to Rs.4,000/-. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed.
9. Copy of this order be provided to the parties free of charges. One copy be sent to the concerned Forum and the file be consigned to Record Room after needful is done.
(KANWAL INDER) MEMBER (SALMA NOOR) MEMBER av