Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: sonography in Dr Prakash Trivedi vs Wipro Ge Medical Systems Pvt Ltd & Ors. on 18 June, 2013Matching Fragments
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member These two appeals are disposed off by this common order since they are in the nature of cross appeals arising out of one and the same order and dealing with same facts and question of law.
Hereinafter reference to the parties is made with their respective status in the consumer complaint.
2. These appeals arise out of order dated 19/10/2010 passed in consumer complaint No.534/2005, Dr.Prakash Trivedi V/s. Wipro GE Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., by Addl. District Forum, Mumbai Suburban. It is a consumer complaint making grievance about defective sonography machine i.e. Colour Doppler Sonography machine.
It is the case of the complainant-Dr.Prakash Trivedi, who is a leading Obstetrician and Gynaecologist practicing in Mumbai that he was in need of LOGIQ-3 CL Colour Doppler Sonography machine (hereinafter referred to as sonography machine) for his IVF In Vitro Fertilization Centre at Ghatkopar, Mumbai. He, therefore, on the information supplied by opponent No.1-Wipro G Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Company) agreed to purchase the same for a total package of `14.70 Lakhs. The terms inter alia include
e) For a total cost of `14.70 (Rs. Fourteen Lacs, Seventy Thousand only) which included taxes but not the octroi.
The machine was accordingly delivered on receiving part payment on 12/12/2003. However, it was not made functional and therefore, opening ceremony planned by the complainant could not be held. The complainant wrote to opponent Company on 17/01/2004, 05/02/2004, 05/03/2004 since machine was not made functional and ultimately sent a legal notice on 04/06/2004. It is also submitted on behalf of the complainant that the machine supplied is a refurbished and passed of as new. There is deficiency in service on the part of the Company since it failed to install and made operational the sonography machine and therefore, assessing the loss to the extent of `16,49,671/- filed a consumer complaint inter alia claiming reliefs, a compensation of `16,49,671/- with interest @ 12% p.a. Further direction to the Company to collect the sonography machine.
9. Complainant wanted to rely upon one notarized affidavit of expert Mr.Lalit Bhawsar. It is notarized on 02/08/2006. However, said affidavit lacks verification and as such reduced its evidentiary value. Besides this, Mr.Lalit Bhawsar submitted that in the month of October 2004 he saw the sonography machine functioning but its monitor was defective. As earlier observed, said monitor was already replaced on 07/12/2004 by the Company. However, one thing which he affirmed is that he saw the sonography machine functional except for defect of monitor. Therefore, if at all this affidavit is to be given any value, it only corroborates the case of the opponents that the machine was made functional by them and accordingly used by the complainant for all these years. There is hardly any evidence to show that sonography machine has any manufacturing defect or that it is either refurbished machine.